|
|
|
|
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 2:34:18 PM |
As far as legal rights go, those children would be getting $84,000 a year in support. How is that "rightful" support to a child? It isn't like they'd That's enough to modestly support an entire family, nevermind two children.
Looking back at my childhood, I was fairly well-off (well fed, well clothed, lots of toys and other crap for entertainment, big home, good school, etc...) I really doubt my parents ever spent more than $750-1500 a month on me to support that sort of lifestyle, and that would fall between 5-10% of their combined income.
You missed the point entirely.
The stautory minimum inIllinois for child support for two minor children is 28% of the net income of the person ordered to pay child support. End of discussion. There is no "wiggle room" on this. The more someone makes, the more he/she has to pay based on the guidelines. In the county where I practice most, the "exceptions" to this rule are all but thrown out the window, in practical sense, there are no exceptions to the minimums.
If you don't believe it, look at the statute. Just plug 750 ILCS 5/505 into Google.
And how is it rightful? It's rightful in the sense that some other perosn who makes $50,000.00 a year would pay 28% of HIS/HER net income ($14,000.00 gross) just like the perosn who makes $300,000.00 a year muct pay 28% of his/her net income($84,000.00 gross).
But remember, the amount is based on NET income, not GROSS....
Still, it applies to everyone equally. That's how it's rightful. Aruge with the legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court if you don't like it. Or don't live in Illinois, then it won't apply to you. But all states have similar schemes for child support. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 3:26:07 PM | Wow~~ Are we putting a price on children here...???,...My sons's are worth wayyyy more than 300K~~ As a matter of fact I can't put a price on my son's ...they are priceless......Now about pre nup.....well I will never sign one....Don't care how much he is worth or much less I am worth.....can't put a price on me either lol....hey with my job....income can change in a huge way in one year.....so in my case....who would be bringing home more bacon??????....Angel | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 11:39:58 PM | But I fail to see how you are equating these possible children as being born with silver spoons and reduced to plastic forks....
^^^Margo,
I guess our opinions will differ about the OP's question depending on how we perceived what his (OP) true intentions were by asking it.
I don't for a second think the OP was clueless or naieve about what current child support could amount too. I think his true question was to find out if a pre-nup could nullify the government laws and guideline tables so his "friend" could minimize the amount of cp he would have to pay should a break-up occur....Let's call a spade a spade...if this "friend" of the OP's is making over 300k a year, he's probably pretty smart. In fact, I would bet he would even be smart enough to know what the legal and finacial implications are from the dissoloution of a marriage that produced a couple of kids.....that's JMO though...
And as for my comment about the silver spoon turning into a plastic fork...no matter how much money we are talking about, this debate seems to be more about gaining financial control for most NCP's. If a child is born into a privelledged lifestyle, they shouldn't suffer from the bickering of two adults who can't get it together, they should be trying to maintain that security and lifestyle for their child(ren).
I don't see how negotiating child support into a pre-nup even shows good faith, let alone a commitment to becoming a good parent for future children. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 11:56:24 PM | It seems to me that some posters equate child maintenance (child support) with spousal support (alimony). These are two entirely different things. The child maintenance is for the child, not the ex. Too many single parents in this world are forced to bring up their children below the poverty line because the other party has it stuck in his/her head that the money is for the ex-spouse. IT'S FOR THE KIDS - got it? Usually the poorer ex-spouse has no income left to spend on the kids after the rent, utilities and groceries are paid for. Sometimes they are left with not even enough money to pay for those necessities. Then there's the daycare (which can run $1200.0 or more a month for one child). So, where is the money going to come from to pay for the daycare so the custodial spouse can work? What about kids' clothing, dental, activities, etc.? Greedy women? No - I think keeping your child in poverty while you live a life of splendor is greed. Turning up on holidays and birthdays with expensive gifts is not going to make up for your shortcoming as a parent - kids are not stupid and one day these skinflint parents are going to pay the price in a huge way for that kind of neglect.
---------------------------------------------
I totally agree with you on that. Some people like to think money is everything when it just brings more problems. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 12:19:05 AM | starfun,
Ontario Prov taxes for $100K is approx $12K if not more. Add another $22K for Fed taxes, EI, & CPP. So now he is paying about $17K out of $66K and thats over 25%...and that is assuming he doesnt spend ANY OTHER MONEY on the kids, which we all agree is not possible.
^^^^OMG....you can't be serious...are NCP's held to the same tax rate on their income as every other canadian...even though they pay child support?
I have an idea..lets tax the kids and child support payments and pay the government twice!....oh wait...I think a single mother already took that arguement to the supreme court in 1994...feel free to correct me....wow....after reading your post it sounds like a NCP's child(ren) should expect their child support to have E.I and CPP deductions... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 1:02:41 AM |
....you can't be serious...are NCP's held to the same tax rate on their income as every other canadian... You are quite good at twisting issues here. Im sorry if you didnt understand my post. Or maybe I didnt make myself clear enough!!! Nowhere did I say NCP's shouldn't pay taxes as every other Canadian. My beef was trying to explain that CS on GROSS is unfair and doesnt make you see the true % of his income you are taking.
....after reading your post it sounds like a NCP's child(ren) should expect their child support to have E.I and CPP deductions... Of course the CS has EI and CPP already deducted except that it is borne by the NCP not the CP even though it is in effect an income for the CP. If you hold the notion that the CS is for the kids hence not an income for the CP, then the same should apply to the NCP and every other Canadian that have kids.
The CS calculations based on GROSS INCOME instead of NET is so unfair. For e.g.
When one does O/T at work, the taxes on that are higher than normal. At the end of the year, the CS payments are still based on the GROSS (now inflated by the O/T)disregarding the fact that the person's tax obligations (due to the O/T) has increased dramatically. If CS is based on NET, then it will reflect the true increase of the person's income (take-home pay).
And how is it rightful? It's rightful in the sense that some other perosn who makes $50,000.00 a year would pay 28% of HIS/HER net income ($14,000.00 gross) just like the perosn who makes $300,000.00 a year muct pay 28% of his/her net income($84,000.00 gross).
But remember, the amount is based on NET income, not GROSS....
Liz, I know you may never agree with me on this issue but at least, I know deep down you can see the madness in these laws. As per quote above, does it make sense to say one needs to spend $84K/yr on 2kids? Are the kids who are living on $14K/yr any less human than the former? IF the NCP were to lose his job or dies, does it mean these $84K/yr kids cant go on? Or will the govt step in to make up the shortfall?
I strongly feel there should be a CAP and the calculation based on NET and the CP should pay for the necessary tax on the monies received. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 7:59:36 PM |
IF the NCP were to lose his job or dies, does it mean these $84K/yr kids cant go on? Or will the govt step in to make up the shortfall?
Most judgments for child support require the non-custodial parent to obtain a life insurance policy to secure child support in the event of death. Losing the job means a material change in circumstances which leads to a reduction in child support payments.
A cap on child support will do no good. I'm not sure what it's like in Canada, but in the USA, it would likely be deemed unconstitutional for a state to set up a cap scheme. It would create a suspect classification of citizenry which cannot survive constitutional muster, which is a married person who decides to have a child or children and then has the ability to not pay the same percentage of his/her income toward his/her children for getting divorced. The cap will likely be less than the percentage the legislature adopted for the wealthier persons and would stick the low and middle class in the breadbasket. Besides, I've heard the debate hundreds of times from my own clients, even those who aren't extremely wealthy at all. It's never going to happen. The legislature has defined what is acceptable for child support based upon number of children, indicating what would have likely been spent on the kids had the couple stayed married. For one child, that percentage is 20% of the gross income, for two, it's 28%. Up to 6 and more children, it's 50%!! The "sense" in my example of spending $84,000.00 a year on 2 children (and that example uses GROSS, not NET because the OP only gave what appeared to be a GROSS income figure) is the very essence of the statute -- equal treatment under the law. Do you think the legislature pulled an arbitrary number out of the clear blue sky for this? The cap you propose would require such an arbitrary figure and that would likely result in being deemed an unconstitutional act. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 10:33:51 PM | The fact that a material change results in CS been changed tells us that the formula for CS is not to take care of the children per se but as a means of "sticking it" to the payer.
The cap will likely be less than the percentage the legislature adopted for the wealthier persons and would stick the low and middle class in the breadbasket. If CS is to provide for the kid(s) then surely there should be a limit . There is only so much a child can consume per month, or clothes, or after school extras, or toys!!! CS is nothing to do with providing for the child!!! Its purely a sort of "Robin Hood" act!!
Constituitional? The fact that various states set different % for CS tells us that there is nothing "constituitional" about the way they are set. Besides judges have always changed this % based on their discretion!
Do you think the legislature pulled an arbitrary number out of the clear blue sky for this? Of course!!! Where did they come up with the idea that a % of a NCP income is adequate. A child needs shouldnt be based on the NCP's income. It should be "a figure pulled out of the sky" - just like the CS % and should be applicable for all kids!! CAP, etc etc. Check out the CS support guidelines for most of the European countries and you will realise that we in North America are just lost..!
In UK for eg. If you make less, you pay a lesser %, if more a high % but up to a CAP! Whats wrong with that?
This thread has been a big eye-opener for me and I thank the OP for it. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/27/2008 6:06:34 AM | | In the states this is what we face with dead beat dad's...I must say not all dad's are dead beat...take my case....My ex is an electrician he is with the union....so he makes darn good money.....but he has not paid a penny in child support since April of 2007...We was in court in Nov and again in Dec...they gave him a 6 months probation and he was supposed to start paying in Dec....still to this day he has not complied with the courts....He called just this past Friday ...He has left the state ...I call DHR....they said it was a misdemeanor and they could not cross the state line....but the state did pull his license this past week....so he is not supposed to be able to get driving license in any state because of this...but they told me some states over look this......He is over 20,000. behind and it is adding up each month with 12% interest....Do I expect to get it ...NO.....I do have full custody of our son...I have not kept him from seeing him...but I am at the point that if he doesn't care about his son....then I don't care if he see's him....Yes it should be based on the income.......It takes alot to put a child through school and then college......and to do that on your own is a huge chunk out of one person's income.....Thank God I am not a materialistic person....I have learned to do without vacations...and other pleasures in order to raise my son .......I am not complaining about raising my son.....He is my life and like I said before PRICELESS.....Be Blessed...Angel | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/27/2008 7:17:43 AM |
Constituitional? The fact that various states set different % for CS tells us that there is nothing "constituitional" about the way they are set.Besides judges have always changed this % based on their discretion!
Respectfully, that is BULL$HIT.
It's painfully obvious you:
a. Have no children.
b. Are not an attorney (or barrister as you Canadians call them). You may be a first year law student but I doubt that.
c. Have no legal support for your position.
Being you're from Canada, and assuming you're not originally from the US, I don't expect you to know a damn thing about the US Constitution, and your quoted comment just confirmed my suspicion. First and foremost, the setting of statutory child support guidelines is a state matter, not one for the Federal government. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution secures the rights for the states to govern any matter not specifically delegated to the United States within the Constitution. Even so, the Fourteenth Amendment later broadened the concept of Due Process to indicate that, while a State can certainly pass its own laws on state issues, it cannot treat its citizens in a manner which violates Due Process. Creating a suspect classification of citizenry, as you indicate is the answer to the problem by instituting a cap on child support, violates Due Process. Pure and simple. It violates Due Process by allowing the wealthy to pay less on a percentage basis than another individual who is less wealthy would have to pay as and for child support. That's a suspect classification, and by analogy it smacks of "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" Jim Crow laws which were racially motivated and deemed to violate Due Process.
But in a larger sense, it also violates the due process of the minor children because THE CHILDREN, who have no say in the amtter at all, certainly didn't ask for their stubborn, greedy, ignorant, idiotic, selfish parents to decide THEY didn't want to be married any longer. You miss the entire point completely when you fail to realize none of this even matters if the persons involved remained married. I understand the guidelines will also apply to unmarried couples who have children but most of the time you DON'T find anyone caring too much if an unwed person pays for his/her children, it's usually looked upon as doing the right thing, but it's not the focal point of this argument.
In no state can a trial judge, when applying a statutory guideline for minimum child support, arbitrarily deviate from the percentage to be less than the minimum without the most compelling of reasons. Discretion, as you define discretion, is not even in the equation. In Lake County, Illinois, the judges' deviation from the guidelines is always to INCREASE the amount, not decrease it, with compelling evidence the needs of the child(ren) requuire more to be sufficiently met.
A child needs shouldnt be based on the NCP's income.
And how do you think the children's needs are met when the parents DO NOT GET DIVORCED??? Let me take a stab at guessing it has at least something to do with the income of their parents.
In UK for eg. If you make less, you pay a lesser %, if more a high % but up to a CAP!
Do yourself and all of us a favor and read the statute before you comment any further on this issue with regard to my practice. 750 ILCS 5/505 Plug it into Google or Yahoo and you'll get the statute. You throw out tons of references with no way to verify them. Illinois law is right there. Go look at it. And provide some sort of reference material for yourself if you choose to continue spouting off about laws of this country or that.
This thread has been a big eye-opener for me and I thank the OP for it.
An eye opener or a chance to engage in mental masturbation? You missed the entire point of the OP. He wanted to know if his friend could cap his child support payments in an antenuptial agreement. The simple answer is no. His income can likely drastically change which would entitle his child(ren) to more support. That would violate the Due Process of the child(ren), and any court in the US would strike that provision of an antenuptial agreement for such reason.
Seems like you took the thread and made it your own to shine a spotlight on your inadequate legal arguments in an attempt to sound as if you really know what you are talking about. I'm certainly not taking personal aim at you by saying that, and please understand, I find your point of view is eloquently stated and vigorously defended, if lacking in support. But if you choose to continue this debate, have some firepower in your arsenal and show us all the "law" as you claim it to be, in whatever jurisdiction you choose to use as an example. I only use Illinois and, generally, the United States, because this is where I live and practice. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the UK or Canada's laws on this, or most any other, issue. They do not apply to me or my practice. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/27/2008 8:48:38 AM |
In the states this is what we face with dead beat dad's
For the record, there are deadbeat mothers as well as deadbeat fathers. Deadbeat parents exist. It's gender neutral. The soundbyte of "deadbeat dad" just seems to sound better.
A deadbeat parent can even have custody of the child(ren). There are some married couples I'd identify as deadbeats due to the basic lack of care and/or understanding encessary to rear children, not just financially, but emotinoally and psychologically, as well.
The bottom line, to me, is some people should never get married, or at least not to one another. And of those who do, some should never have children. At least not together, if at all. And if not married, they never should have had sex to begin with!
OK, rant over.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/27/2008 10:16:27 AM | | Yes deuce I agree...there are some dead beat mom's...I was speaking for myself on that one....refering to my son's dad....at one time the local paper would put a dad's (Mom's)pic in the paper that was way behind on child support...that was long before I divorced....personally I thought that was a good idea......they rounded up alot of those dad's and mom's that didn't pay up.......I am to the point....I don't fret over it and I don't expect a penny.......If he does decide to pay up...then that is money in the bank for my son's college fund.......Angel | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/30/2008 12:10:12 AM | The CS calculations based on GROSS INCOME instead of NET is so unfair.
^^^starfun...this is where you need to brush up on the current guidlines of child support paid by NCP's....The calculation is NOT based on GROSS income....unless the NCP's support order is before 1993...and if it is before the supreme court ruling from 1994 (approx) then that NCP has the ability to deduct any child support paid to the CP, and the CP in the similiar circumstance, who is recieving support based on GROSS income, is required to claim that support as income.
This circumstance is able to be remmedied quite easily. It only requires one of the two parties to go to court and ask the judge to re-evaluate the child support based on the current guidelines in place .
As far as the O/T argument you make...My first question would be..If a NCP has been able to work a significant amount of O/T, what kind of time have they dedicated to helping raise their child(ren)? My other comment would be...you can't apply the tax deductions on O/T payments as lost income, because everyone knows that your taxes are deducted every pay at the same rate...so obviously anyone working overtime will be taxed at a higher rate...but one will recoup the loss (most of it) when they file income tax at the end of the year.
starfun, I don't think you really have a realistic grasp of how the family court system and child support laws work here in Canada. For some reason, you seem to think that the NCP's are the only victims in this debate about child support and the amount that is fair....but fair to whom?...you are only wanting to see one side of the arguement.
Do I think that $5000.00 is enough to adequately support two kids....YES...hell I could probably support my three kids and a few foster kids with that kind of money...but that is not the point. You can't make one set of rules for one class and expect everyone else who is beneath that upper class to abide by the same rules.
It just dosen't work that way....and it CANNOT work that way.....IMO..if a NCP is making the kind of income where they are forced into paying $5000.00 that is in line with the tabled guideline amount of the government, then I fail to see how much of a burden that would be to their lifestlye considering in most cases it is less than 20% of a net income here in Canada.....BTW....life insurance is routinely worked into most custody/child support agreements should the NCP die unexpectedly.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/30/2008 5:38:49 AM |
....The calculation is NOT based on GROSS income....unless the NCP's support order is before 1993... I just checked again and it is based on "Total Income" aka GROSS! Read the Federal child support Guidlines again - http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html
Read Section 15 thro 20! The whole thing is so unfair.
NCP has the ability to deduct any child support paid to the CP, and the CP in the similiar circumstance, who is recieving support based on GROSS income, is required to claim that support as income. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/acsi/about.html
Again, its not true. The NCP cannot deduct that at tax time and the CP is not required to report that as income. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html Read Schedule III - Adjustment to Income!
For some reason, you seem to think that the NCP's are the only victims in this debate about child support and the amount that is fair....but fair to whom?...you are only wanting to see one side of the arguement! Its definitely unfair to the NCP. The child support guidlines is written such that it maximizes the hardship to most NCP. Even if the NCP happens to be living in a country where income tax is lower, or the standard of living is lower, or income is lower, the court will then have to impute income. Read section 19.1 (b),(c). This sounds like a making a second set of rules for people who are not HIT hard enough with the normal set of rules. Im sorry if I sound one-sided but I honestly think the current guidlines are not fair. If the using the current set of guidlines favour the NCP, then a new set of rules are applied. That smacks of unfairness!!!
if a NCP is making the kind of income where they are forced into paying $5000.00 that is in line with the tabled guideline amount of the government, then I fail to see how much of a burden that would be to their lifestlye Its not so much of a question of lifestyle changes. The truth is regardless of how much money you make (say $1million/yr), there is only so much per month that you can spend on the kids. Make another $10m/yr and this amount does not increase. There's only so much school, extra-curriculum activities, food, clothes etc a child will need per month. Hence my insistance on a cap. Sorry if I sound one-sided.
A fairer way (in my opinion) is the one in say UK.
http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/setup/how-maintenance-calculated.asp | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/30/2008 5:51:05 AM | Deuce1231
Do yourself and all of us a favor and read the statute before you comment any further on this issue with regard to my practice. 750 ILCS 5/505 Plug it into Google or Yahoo and you'll get the statute. You throw out tons of references with no way to verify them. Illinois law is right there. Go look at it. And provide some sort of reference material for yourself if you choose to continue spouting off about laws of this country or that. Well, I didnt quote specific statutes here because I erroneously thought that as an attorney, you will have no problem searching on google (as you implied people to) a simple phrase as "UK child support Guidlines"! In any case, here is the link -
http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/setup/how-maintenance-calculated.asp
So you see it is not a blind calculation as that of North America. 4 sets of calculations!
Nowhere in my post did I refer to your practise. No where did I belittle you or said anything immature about you! This is a forum for voicing opinions and not for insults. I could have chosen to respond to all the silly remarks you made about me but I have decided not to stoop that low.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the UK or Canada's laws on this, or most any other, issue. They do not apply to me or my practice. Participation in this thread and forum in general is voluntary hence yours is not required or mandated. No one is asking you to care about laws of UK or Canada!
I'm certainly not taking personal aim at you ...... Same here!! I even apologise in advance if you feel offended. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 1:21:24 AM | http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/10ntk/faqm.html#q14
^^ I stand corrected starfun, however I do believe that the government allows for certain deductions that are typically made on a NCP's income before determining the level of child support......it is a simple guideline....I copied this fro the website you provided...and it says it all.....
14. Why are the Table amounts based on gross income?
Gross income is considered a fairer reflection of income because net income allows a large number of discretionary deductions that can make it difficult to set fair levels of support.
^^^What my perception of the above statement and current legislation is, it meant to prevent some NCP's from falsifying their deductions to the point where the net income they claim is drastically lower than what was actually earned (by the NCP)....
On average most NCP's only pay about 20% of their income for two kids..........so what's the argument about?.....You are defineatley on the opposite side of this arguement from where I sit....perhaps the perception I have is largely based on reality.........and yours is based on your personal opinions and presumptions.
The truth is regardless of how much money you make (say $1million/yr), there is only so much per month that you can spend on the kids......
^^^okay, I get it.......but shouldn't the same be said for NCP's?....How much money is enough to provide for their own needs? (meaning NCP's)....It is silly to argue about ridiculous amounts of child support in excesses of 5000.00..those cases are few and far between.....By putting any type of cap on child support guidelines, the government opens it self up to being held liable and finacially responsible for the NCP's who don't feel like paying, or are clever enough to shrink their true income down to a dime.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 3:19:49 AM | Thanks Liz. The only deductions the government allows is for people who are self-employed.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html SCHEDULE III (16) already provide a list for deductions that can be made...so there is no need for sticking it out to all those who are not self-emplyed. So in essence, your GROSS without deducting a cent is what is used.
On average most NCP's only pay about 20% of their income for two kids..........so what's the argument about?.
.......but shouldn't the same be said for NCP's?....How much money is enough to provide for their own needs? (meaning NCP's).... I recently read of a case here in Ontario where the NCP makes $870K and the CP $900K. Well, the NCP is complaining that by being forced to pay 20% of his income to the kids, the CP is having a free ride. With extra expenses he is paying close to $200k/yr for 2 kids. That is surely enough to take care of these kids without the CP contributing a cent. Where is the fairness in this!! Lets not assume that the CP ALWAYS makes less than the NCP. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 3:56:20 AM | I recently read of a case here in Ontario where the NCP makes $870K and the CP $900K. Well, the NCP is complaining that by being forced to pay 20% of his income to the kids, the CP is having a free ride. With extra expenses he is paying close to $200k/yr for 2 kids. That is surely enough to take care of these kids without the CP contributing a cent. Where is the fairness in this!! ......
starfun....^^^ you do not seem to be able to grasp the arguement I am making....it isn't even really an arguement...it is the law here in Canada for the NCP to contribute a percentage of their income to their own children as a means of child support.
If a CP won the lottery and had 5 million in the bank, the NCP would still be required to pay child support...regardless of how much they made.
I have said this before, and I will repeat myself in saying it again..When two parents cannot comprimise and support each other for the benefit of their children...than nobody wins. This issue of child support often has got alot more to do with CONTROL than it does with money.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:18:53 AM | | Maybe I should repeat myself too...I AM NOT AGAINST THE NCP PAYING CS. My beef all along is the fairness and the real motive behind the rules. Nothing else!! If the reason behind it was for the sake of the kids, surely there should be some sense of fairness. Thats my beef!!! Nowhere have I said the NCP shouldnt pay CS. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:33:00 AM | | I suggest your friend keep his pecker in his pants if he doesnt want to pay child support! I live in manitoba and the justice system here sucks by the way but favours women , they have an agreement with pretty much every country the right to enforce child support payments and will track you down so you cant run!and I believe from the information I gathered that ontario,british columbia and alberta are on board with this program! and ladys the reason I say it favours women is that I am single father and have custody of my 6 year old son and get nothing for child support from my ex as the courts find if she makes under a certian amount shes not required to pay yet from my first child I was employed and set to pay a certain amount then when I was layed off still required to pay the same amount no break! oh and by the way a prenup dont mean sqaut!! | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:39:58 AM | | I think he should see a lawyer and get some advice on how to best manage his income and assets given his new situation. A Pre-nuptial (if they are getting married) or some sort of Binding Financial Agreement might be prudent if he is concerned about his assets if the relationship breaks down. Couples arrange these all the time in a perfectly civil manner, which is certainly better than bitter squabbling about who gets what if things don't work out. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:43:56 AM | | This folks is one of the primary reasons why I havent had any children as of yet and probably never will. It is too easy today for a woman to reduce a man who is enthusiatic about being a father toward his offspring to nothing more than a human wallet because of the biased family courts. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:46:37 AM | Well thats a bonus its based on net not gross in canada here it is based on gross not net!
so when I apply for child subisidy for daycare they say I make to much and im not eligible but yet by the time I get my cheque from work and distribute it to the bank for payments of the mortgage and then utilities etc and still I still have to come up for payment to daycare because hey i make to much money yeah right I wish the would take child support from my net then I wouldnt mind so much!
I pay for my first child my girl by the way at 417.00 a month out of a 1300.00 dollar net take home pay and have custody of my second child boy and get nothing from his mother for support to differant mothers,You americans have it made!! | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/2/2008 8:50:33 AM |
Where is the fairness in this!! Lets not assume that the CP ALWAYS makes less than the NCP. Using that scenario, both parents made a combined income of over $1.7 million a year. It isn't about fairness, it's about what kind of lifestyle all parties have become accustomed to. If you apply the proposed cap to this situation, the NCP would pay less than $200k a year yet the lifestyle they had become accustomed to would not be changing. The difference would have to come from somewhere and that would be from the CP. Using your argument of fairness, is it fair to the CP to have to make that difference up? Had the couple stayed together, they (the children) would have had a certain amount of that $1.7 million to care for them in the manner they became accustomed to. That amount should be split by the parents based on their respective incomes regardless of who makes more money.
Louisiana does this to figure out what the support payments will be. That to me is more fair that just a percentage because it is representative of reality.
There is no way that there will ever be any rulings, tables, or percentages put into place that will satisfy everyone in this matter, someone will always think it is unfair somewhere. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/2/2008 9:00:26 AM |
You americans have it made!! We do?!?! My daughters mother is supposed to be paying child support yet hasn't in over two years. It damn near takes an act of Congress to get that back and if I am not mistaken, until she owes over $10,000 it isn't a federal offense. There are ways to legally enforce the support agreement outside the state child support enforcement office but those cost money out of my pocket. I'm not getting child support as it is, so how can one expect to recoup that expenditure from her? Utilizing the enforcement office is slow at best and usually they can only manage to levy tax refunds if the NCP tends to switch jobs making it difficult to garnish wages.
I'm having a hard time seeing just how easy I have it. | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
