|
|
|
|
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/29/2009 3:01:24 PM | Vanguy, I don't know how many of the postings you've read (this is one long-ass thread!), but if I came across as sounding unhappy or dissatisfied with the CS I receive, that was not my intention. I don't necessarily think he should pay more, but I want to point out that his support is a portion of what I maintain our household on, and not a huge portion at that. It bothers me when it is suggested that I, or "most" other CP's can "live off" CS, because that is "usually" not the case. I have read your postings, though, and I see that your situation is exceptional.
As I said before, from a purely financial standpoint, divorce is usually a very bad decision, but it is a decision that some of us need to make, and most of the time everybody ends up giving up something. Yes, even the kids. I think perhaps the reason that my ex appears not to have given up very much, is that he simply earns more money now. My children have moved to a significantly smaller, less expensive home than they were accustomed to. They seem happy, though. I am sure it has a lot to do with the fact that I am a lot happier. Probably their father is happier, too.
As far as what I could be getting, by the time my marriage was over I just didn't have the stomach for an ugly battle, so I opted not to have one. When I left him, his first response was to rant about how he was going to cut me off without a dime. I certainly left without one. Shortly thereafter, when he realized that I wasn't coming back, he saw a lawyer, who told him he better be reasonable or be prepared to lose half of his business. The end result: against the advice of my lawyer, I never went after the business and I accepted only three years of spousal support, although my lawyer felt I should have pressed for longer because I had been a SAHM for most of the marriage. I just wanted enough time and money to retrain to get a decent job, which I did. CS was based on an average of three years of "declared" earnings of the business.
Like you, I had lots of friends and family who were outraged on my behalf. If I had listened to them, I would have never married him in the first place, though...lol. In retrospect, I still think I did the right thing. When we first split, I would not have believed we would ever be on good terms again, but we are; it is all just so much water under the bridge. I can totally relate to your reluctance to have another kick at the can in court, although part of my desire to avoid the ugliness had to do with my children. I wish you the best, Vanguy. I hope you do have the chance to be a dad someday; it seems like you have potential to be a good one. Forty-five isn't that old to have a child, especially for a man. Maybe you'll meet a youngish woman with plenty of money of her own, or get a new job making more money. At any rate, happy fishing to you. You seem like a decent guy. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/29/2009 11:05:38 PM | Lisbeth, that a bunch of Yapping with no substance.
I already have given a detailed account of how my TWO kids DON'T COST me more than $1000/month based purely on their NEEDS which are based on ACTUAL COSTS that I spend money on... and that's based on living in a detached house in Toronto where each child has their own bedroom. ~zekestone~
^^^OF COURSE your kids don't cost that....you still live with your ex at the moment don't you??....researching virtule cost on the internet are not a true representation of ACTUAL expenses....Live it first...I assure you your budget will need to be refined to represent reality.
Now if you're gonna do competitive hockey AND competitive golf PLUS something else like Football, then I can see the money being tight.
And I just bought new equipment for my kids not too long ago... ~zekestone~
^^^I just bought new equipment too!!! I bought the stuff ON SALE and guessed what size the boys will be next season for hockey....and I have just pulled out the equipment I bought for soccer and baseball last fall for this spring...also ON SALE!!...Too bad the fees for the competitive sports don't give discounts!!
As for 10% "never being enough"... What's stopping YOU from doing what you have to do to get that big income? And don't give me a crock about how "you have the kids". When I was in University, I was in school with some women who had kids. And one super-driven woman I personally knew was in university with me AND she was pregnant AND she had a part time job AND she already had a kid. She was the MOST driven person I've ever met... man or woman.~zekestone~
^^^Every time I became pregnant, I made the choice to be a mother to the baby and dedicated my time to being the best mother I could be. I didn't work at all with my first, I worked part-time with my second, and with my third I asked my company to allow me to take a temporary demotion so I could dedicate more time to being a mother. My choice to stay home and the fact that it was possible for me to do so should not be the burr in your arse that it seems to be..but I take great pleasure in the fact that it is...
NOTHING is stopping ME from making the big bucks...if that is what I want... However, I do not think it is a sacrifice to put my career on hold while I raise my children...IMO, it is a sacrifice to my childrens future to be working full-time when it isn't neccesary because the child support and tax benefits is meant for that very thing.
And as for the line about what kids are used to and the insinuation that "the lifestyle must be maintained or the world will end"... that's a crock too... just ask all the autoworkers who got laid off... .~zekestone~
^^^^puhhlease......according to your estimates on what one or two children cost....it is obvious there is no mantinence of lifetstyle...time for you to get your own place zek....Do me a favour, stop using the examples that give you easy outs by quoting extreme examples..and stop using other peoples experiences and passing them off as your own..Not that this account will make a difference to your opinion..I am going to disclose the portioned amount my 2 boys cost every month ...
-Roof over their heads = $500.00..property tax inluded. (I would live in a condo and own alot more shoes if I didn't maintain the modest house I do for them)
-Utilities min $150.00 (hydro, gas, water, cable, internet, phones)
- Food is at least $600.00 (try feeding teenagers)
- School expenses monthly are about $75.00 (bus passes, extra course costs,class trips)
- Clothing $50.00 (including uniforms, shoes, boots, winter coats, etc..)
- Sporting activities including registration, equipment and mileage to and from events $100.00
- Haircuts and other personal grooming supplies $25.00
...seems I am up too almost $1600.00 a month now Zeke...and I haven't even included allowances or money spent on gifts for the parties they are invited too...or accounted for the extra food I buy BECAUSE they have their friends over at our house EVERYDAY after school..
BTW...my calculations are based on what my expenses are..after deducting the child support portion my ex is responsible for monthly.
I thought I was pretty conservative in my estimates...and I don't live anywhere close to the high priced markets in TO....so you were saying that $1000.00 was enough for 2 kids?..despite how much you make....$1000.00 is not even close to minimum to support two children these days... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/29/2009 11:05:55 PM | Lisbeth, that a bunch of Yapping with no substance.
I already have given a detailed account of how my TWO kids DON'T COST me more than $1000/month based purely on their NEEDS which are based on ACTUAL COSTS that I spend money on... and that's based on living in a detached house in Toronto where each child has their own bedroom. ~zekestone~
^^^OF COURSE your kids don't cost that....you still live with your ex at the moment don't you??....researching virtule cost on the internet are not a true representation of ACTUAL expenses....Live it first...I assure you your budget will need to be refined to represent reality.
Now if you're gonna do competitive hockey AND competitive golf PLUS something else like Football, then I can see the money being tight.
And I just bought new equipment for my kids not too long ago... ~zekestone~
^^^I just bought new equipment too!!! I bought the stuff ON SALE and guessed what size the boys will be next season for hockey....and I have just pulled out the equipment I bought for soccer and baseball last fall for this spring...also ON SALE!!...Too bad the fees for the competitive sports don't give discounts!!
As for 10% "never being enough"... What's stopping YOU from doing what you have to do to get that big income? And don't give me a crock about how "you have the kids". When I was in University, I was in school with some women who had kids. And one super-driven woman I personally knew was in university with me AND she was pregnant AND she had a part time job AND she already had a kid. She was the MOST driven person I've ever met... man or woman.~zekestone~
^^^Every time I became pregnant, I made the choice to be a mother to the baby and dedicated my time to being the best mother I could be. I didn't work at all with my first, I worked part-time with my second, and with my third I asked my company to allow me to take a temporary demotion so I could dedicate more time to being a mother. My choice to stay home and the fact that it was possible for me to do so should not be the burr in your arse that it seems to be..but I take great pleasure in the fact that it is...
NOTHING is stopping ME from making the big bucks...if that is what I want... However, I do not think it is a sacrifice to put my career on hold while I raise my children...IMO, it is a sacrifice to my childrens future to be working full-time when it isn't neccesary because the child support and tax benefits is meant for that very thing.
And as for the line about what kids are used to and the insinuation that "the lifestyle must be maintained or the world will end"... that's a crock too... just ask all the autoworkers who got laid off... .~zekestone~
^^^^puhhlease......according to your estimates on what one or two children cost....it is obvious there is no mantinence of lifetstyle...time for you to get your own place zek....Do me a favour, stop using the examples that give you easy outs by quoting extreme examples..and stop using other peoples experiences and passing them off as your own..Not that this account will make a difference to your opinion..I am going to disclose the portioned amount my 2 boys cost every month ...
-Roof over their heads = $500.00..property tax inluded. (I would live in a condo and own alot more shoes if I didn't maintain the modest house I do for them)
-Utilities min $150.00 (hydro, gas, water, cable, internet, phones)
- Food is at least $600.00 (try feeding teenagers)
- School expenses monthly are about $75.00 (bus passes, extra course costs,class trips)
- Clothing $50.00 (including uniforms, shoes, boots, winter coats, etc..)
- Sporting activities including registration, equipment and mileage to and from events $100.00
- Haircuts and other personal grooming supplies $25.00
...seems I am up too almost $1600.00 a month now Zeke...and I haven't even included allowances or money spent on gifts for the parties they are invited too...or accounted for the extra food I buy BECAUSE they have their friends over at our house EVERYDAY after school..
BTW...my calculations are based on what my expenses are..after deducting the child support portion my ex is responsible for monthly.
I thought I was pretty conservative in my estimates...and I don't live anywhere close to the high priced markets in TO....so you were saying that $1000.00 was enough for 2 kids?..despite how much you make....$1000.00 is not even close to minimum to support two children these days... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/29/2009 11:15:01 PM | Firstly, let's not forget that that CS isn't supposed to pay for the costs associated with raising the children. It is supposed to pay for a *share* of it.
Van -- Ain't that just it eh?
Pay for a SHARE of...not FINANCE THE WHOLE THING.
But if we dare suggest that BOTH parents pay their share, then we're deemed the Devil incarnate. A couple kids can get pretty far on $3500/month SPLIT between two parents. Oddly though, the "other" parent seems to think the $3500 tab should be the NCP's responsibility solely.
Disparity much? | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 2:33:44 PM | Of course both parents must pay their share. The NCP in my case pays according to his income...but that amount does not represent a huge percentage of what I bring in every month, because I have two good jobs and I work a lot. I also recently inherited a small rental property that brings in a little money every month.
Contrast that with a NCP who pays 1800 for three kids per month based on her/his income, but the CP doesn't have a very good job. At fifteen bucks an hour, for example, the CP would probably NET less than the 1800 that the NCP contributes, so in that case the CP wouldn't even match what the NCP was paying. Therefore, the ex spouse would be paying more than half all the CP's household expenses, and it seems obvious that some of that money would be going to support the CP and not just the children.
I guess my question is, well, then what? Should the custodial parent only receive the 1800 per month, if he/she can MATCH it? Some people are just not able to do so. I am able to work a fair amount because my children are older, but this is not an option for all CPs. Some people are just not ever going to get a great paying job. Perhaps they aren't very well educated. Maybe the job market is tight; I don't know. I know this, though. If one earns a good living, he/she should be proud and satisfied to provide support for his/her children. No matter what. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 2:50:29 PM | Therefore, the ex spouse would be paying more than half all the CP's household expenses, and it seems obvious that some of that money would be going to support the CP and not just the children.
Seems obvious but this is the whole crux of it ain't it? That CHILD support money is going to support the CP. If things are that rough, then the current CP should give the custody to the "better off" parent if it's such a hardship. Then the former CP can go back to school to better educate themselves and not rely on soft crutches like lack of education/weak job market/etc to justify the CS funds being spent to fund THEM too.
I know this, though. If one earns a good living, he/she should be proud and satisfied to provide support for his/her children. No matter what.
Ah yes, and the circular argument takes the next lap. No one has an issue with the CHILDREN being taken care of...it's when they are also taking care of the PARENT that chaps a lot of asses. If CS funds are being used to facilitate the PARENT as well, then this is a sign that the Courts awarded custody to the wrong parent. If they can't afford to pay their equal share in what they've so long said is a "takes two to tango" situation, then they shouldn't be the CP. The "better off" parent should be.
Problem solved. NCP doesn't have to finance the children AND the parent, and the other parent can go back to school to better educate themselves. Win-win. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 3:27:38 PM | BDJ:
EXCELLENT POINTS!
If CS funds are being used to facilitate the PARENT as well, then this is a sign that the Courts awarded custody to the wrong parent. If they can't afford to pay their equal share in what they've so long said is a "takes two to tango" situation, then they shouldn't be the CP. The "better off" parent should be. After all isn't it supposed to be "in the best interests of the child(ren)!"
If things are that rough, then the current CP should give the custody to the "better off" parent if it's such a hardship. Then the former CP can go back to school to better educate themselves Its a bit sickening to hear CP's saying "I can take better care of the child(ren) with your (NCP's) money!"
NCP doesn't have to finance the children AND the parent, and the other parent can go back to school to better educate themselves ANOTHER EXCELLENT POINT - BDJ! | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 4:46:29 PM | | Yes BDJ and Starfun!!!!! Excellent points !!!!! Well done....you have solved the entire problem. Why, that is just outstanding. Why didn' t we think of that before !!!????Just give the kids to the RICHER parent.!!!! Problem solved. You should run for office..... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 4:59:43 PM | In Starfun and BDJ's world, make sure you don't procreate with someone who earns more than you do, or you will lose your kids in a divorce. Hmmmm, what do to....hold your partner back in her/his career at all costs so you'll always come out ahead!
<div class='quote'>Its a bit sickening to hear CP's saying "I can take better care of the child(ren) with your (NCP's) money!"
Not nearly as sickening as it would be to hear "I make more money than you, so I am taking custody of our children." | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 9:33:41 PM | "Not nearly as sickening as it would be to hear "I make more money than you, so I am taking custody of our children.""
Twisted his words completely around and I knew this would be the response.
What I read from his comments that, what if the person who earns can provide a better opportunity for the children while at the same time the other parent gets the time they need to get an education or back into the job market.
Isn't about what is best for the kids and it may be the the kids would do better with the person that makes less. But if exclude the fact that the other person who is making a good living could provide better opportinuties are we really doing what is best for the children or is simply about power and control. | |
|
cuzndm
|
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 711 | |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 9:41:33 PM | | If he's already worrying about this, should he be getting married? In this day & age, who's to say she'll get custody of the kids. Do they have alimony covered too? Counseling might be a good idea. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 10:33:00 PM | starfun. what an incredible outlook! its nice to hear from a real woman. judge maybelline said the same thing to a wallet leech on her show. "you ate that dinner, didn't you? you lived in that house. etc. child support is supposed to help raise a child, not to support a leech in splendor. but its become just another word for alimony. children don't deserve or need 5-10000 dollars a month. as cliff huxtable said to vanessa,"your mother and i are rich, you have nothing". w
hy is that they're only HIS children when the wallet comes out. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/30/2009 10:51:28 PM |
"Not nearly as sickening as it would be to hear "I make more money than you, so I am taking custody of our children.""
Twisted his words completely around and I knew this would be the response.
What I read from his comments that, what if the person who earns can provide a better opportunity for the children while at the same time the other parent gets the time they need to get an education or back into the job market.
Isn't about what is best for the kids and it may be the the kids would do better with the person that makes less. But if exclude the fact that the other person who is making a good living could provide better opportinuties are we really doing what is best for the children or is simply about power and control.
Sweep -- Save the wind - it's just gonna fall on deaf ears, and we all know it. So far, after 29 pages it has all fallen on deaf ears...so what makes anyone think that'll change now? Seriously, save the wind...it's not goin' anywhere. Least of all in that general direction...
(points)
I mean, let's face it...it was a certain poster here who said "I know this, though. If one earns a good living, he/she should be proud and satisfied to provide support for his/her children. No matter what.", but it's clear that was a slanted rebuttal if it impugns on their custody of the child(ren). Clearly, if I break out my chick-to-English Dictionary, the translation goes a little something like this:
"If HE earns a good living, HE should be proud and satisfied to provide support to ME and the children. No matter what. But I get to keep the kids. I just want his money, and I'll continue to tell people I don't have the education to get a better paying job, or the market is just too tight. Paying me is HIS responsibility. They'd probably have a better life with the breadwinner, but that would mean HE gets the kids and that's just unconstitutional and unfair. Besides, with no kids in the house that means I'll have to go back to school, or get a job because I'll no longer have a built in excuse. No fair! WHAT ABOUT ME...I mean...WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? Just gimme money and we'll be fine."
Some translations are just more apparent than others. That one was easy. So basically what that poster meant was, "no matter what" (unless it means I don't get the kids). So it should read "no matter what **some exceptions apply see guidelines for more information**". Soon as I get a patent for my chick-to-English Dictionary I'll be sure to pass them out liberally so we can all follow along accordingly.
No need to thank me. It's the least I can do. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 6:51:35 AM |
Not nearly as sickening as it would be to hear "I make more money than you, so I am taking custody of our children.
NOT QUITE. Rather it means..."Since it is OBVIOUS that I can better provide for the kids it will therefore be in their best interests to let them stay/be with me" And this should be applicable irrespective of the gender.
Any GOOD parent (with no hidden agenda) will agree to this. Afterall, I repeat, its in the best interest of the kids. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 7:42:04 AM |
I mean, let's face it...it was a certain poster here who said "I know this, though. If one earns a good living, he/she should be proud and satisfied to provide support for his/her children. No matter what.", but it's clear that was a slanted rebuttal if it impugns on their custody of the child(ren). Clearly, if I break out my chick-to-English Dictionary, the translation goes a little something like this:
"If HE earns a good living, HE should be proud and satisfied to provide support to ME and the children. No matter what. But I get to keep the kids. I just want his money, and I'll continue to tell people I don't have the education to get a better paying job, or the market is just too tight. Paying me is HIS responsibility. They'd probably have a better life with the breadwinner, but that would mean HE gets the kids and that's just unconstitutional and unfair. Besides, with no kids in the house that means I'll have to go back to school, or get a job because I'll no longer have a built in excuse. No fair! WHAT ABOUT ME...I mean...WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? Just gimme money and we'll be fine."
Some translations are just more apparent than others. That one was easy. So basically what that poster meant was, "no matter what" (unless it means I don't get the kids). So it should read "no matter what **some exceptions apply see guidelines for more information**". Soon as I get a patent for my chick-to-English Dictionary I'll be sure to pass them out liberally so we can all follow along accordingly.
Call it "Translating Spin Doctoring For Dummies".
You can slice and dice it any way you like, but what it boils down to is CP's trying to get the CP the lifestyle they want, more than about what's in the childs best interest. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 2:58:43 PM |
"Not nearly as sickening as it would be to hear "I make more money than you, so I am taking custody of our children."
Twisted his words completely around and I knew this would be the response.
So only one sided arguments will do, then. Starfun can say whatever she likes, and if I have an opposing point of view, I am twisting. I happen to find it twisted and sickening that a person would automatically assume the parent who makes more money should be entitled to custody of the kids. That is my opinion and I am allowed to have one.
"Since it is OBVIOUS that I can better provide for the kids it will therefore be in their best interests to let them stay/be with me
Not anywhere close to being obvious, I’m afraid. There are many factors that go into being a good parent, and money is only one of them. If you don’t understand that, I suggest you don’t ever breed.
Sweep -- Save the wind - it's just gonna fall on deaf ears, and we all know it. So far, after 29 pages it has all fallen on deaf ears...
Oh, I hear your pearls of wisdom, and I understand them just fine. I completely and utterly disagree with you, that’s all.
I mean, let's face it...it was a certain poster here who said "I know this, though. If one earns a good living, he/she should be proud and satisfied to provide support for his/her children. No matter what.", but it's clear that was a slanted rebuttal if it impugns on their custody of the child(ren). Clearly, if I break out my chick-to-English Dictionary, the translation goes a little something like this:
"If HE earns a good living, HE should be proud and satisfied to provide support to ME and the children. No matter what. But I get to keep the kids. I just want his money, and I'll continue to tell people I don't have the education to get a better paying job, or the market is just too tight. Paying me is HIS responsibility. They'd probably have a better life with the breadwinner, but that would mean HE gets the kids and that's just unconstitutional and unfair. Besides, with no kids in the house that means I'll have to go back to school, or get a job because I'll no longer have a built in excuse. No fair! WHAT ABOUT ME...I mean...WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS? Just gimme money and we'll be fine."
First, I am a PERSON, not a CHICK. When I speak, I say exactly what I mean, so how about you show me where I ever said a man can’t be the CP and vice versa. I am not a sexist.
Here’s a novel idea....I’LL speak for MYSELF, and YOU speak for YOURSELF. How about that? | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 3:50:30 PM | "So only one sided arguments will do, then. Starfun can say whatever she likes, and if I have an opposing point of view, I am twisting. I happen to find it twisted and sickening that a person would automatically assume the parent who makes more money should be entitled to custody of the kids. That is my opinion and I am allowed to have one."
No, but in your original response you made all about money where as it was about who can provide the best enviroment for the child. The person who makes the most money may not be the best choice to be the cp since due to their work schedule in order to make that money they may not have the time to take care of the child. But if they do and if the other parent needs the time to develop skills to re-enter the workforce, then why wouldn't the other parent be allowed to have custody of the children. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 4:45:06 PM |
No, but in your original response you made all about money where as it was about who can provide the best enviroment for the child. The person who makes the most money may not be the best choice to be the cp since due to their work schedule in order to make that money they may not have the time to take care of the child. But if they do and if the other parent needs the time to develop skills to re-enter the workforce, then why wouldn't the other parent be allowed to have custody of the children.
Well, soccersweep, my original post was on a slightly different aspect of the whole issue. My point was that the expenses associated with having physical custody of children were considerably higher than what some people were suggesting. That's all. I am sure I never implied that the person who made the most money should automatically be awarded custody. There is a lot more to consider than just the hard costs, anyway. I thought we agreed on that a few posts back.
PS...I am not sure what you mean about claiming unused tax credits for my child in university. Can you elaborate? | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 4:53:35 PM | Can anyone else hear that?
Seriously...
I could swear I heard a whole lotta clucking and feathers being ruffled just now.
There is it again!
You can't hear that? Listen close...you'll hear it too...
Interesting split personality you've got going on there BJ. All deadly serious when spouting off about equality as it pertains to splitting the costs of dating, equal custody rights for men, men and women both being independent and self supporting...blah blah blah;yet, when you didn't like what I said, or perhaps the way I said it, you bust out the sexist remark and patronizing jokes. Bravo! I knew it lurked right beneath the surface.
Funny. Men are always going on about how women want equality when it suits them, but not when it doesn't. I submit the same is true about you (oh, and by YOU, I mean YOU BDJ, not all men). | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 9:59:24 PM |
Interesting split personality you've got going on there BJ. All deadly serious when spouting off about equality as it pertains to splitting the costs of dating, equal custody rights for men, men and women both being independent and self supporting...blah blah blah;yet, when you didn't like what I said, or perhaps the way I said it, you bust out the sexist remark and patronizing jokes. Bravo! I knew it lurked right beneath the surface.
Funny. Men are always going on about how women want equality when it suits them, but not when it doesn't. I submit the same is true about you (oh, and by YOU, I mean YOU BDJ, not all men).
*cluck* *cluck*
There it is again.
(and don't think we haven't noticed your clever attempt to dodge the last statement I made either...if you don't wanna play just feel free to wave the white flag anytime)
PS -- Sexist remark? Now you're just reaching. And failing I may add. Quit while you're ahead. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/31/2009 10:16:10 PM | My point was that the expenses associated with having physical custody of children were considerably higher than what some people were suggesting.² That's all. I am sure I never implied that the person who made the most money should automatically be awarded custody.³ There is a lot more to consider than just the hard costs, anyway.
² So then wouldn't it make sense that the children remain with the parent who can afford those "considerably higher costs"?
³ I guess not.
That's where the implication was derived from. You rant and rave about the costs like the only thing that matters about children is how much money NCP's are paying to the other parent to offset costs in their home. The counter point was that if the amount of money an NCP pays is the measure of their love... then if the measure of their love comes up higher than that of the CP, perhaps the NCP should become the CP. Stop measuring love with money and others will follow suit. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/1/2009 9:06:07 AM | Okay Lizbeth,
Sorry took a little while to get back to you and I know you missed me.
Your $1600/month idea is inflated and you know it.
Roof over their heads = $500.00? No... I've already established that anyone can get that additional bedroom for $200 per bedroom OR LESS...property tax included. Those must be a couple of very big and very nice bedrooms for it to cost that much.
-Utilities min $150.00 (hydro, gas, water, cable, internet, phones)? No. First off... cable, internet and phones don't count. You'd have cable, internet and a phone kids or no kids. As for each child having their own cell phone... that's a want, not a need. My kids don't have cell phones and the only cell phones they're gonna get are the ones they pay for themselves. As for utilities, as I've already established, the portion of utilities those two extra bedrooms and two extra kids is definitely well UNDER $100/month. If the 'child portion' of your utilities is a minimum of $150, then you have an inefficient furnace, really crank up the heat in the winter, crank up the AC in the summer, have more than one fridge, still use incandescent lights everywhere, have an electric water heater and your house is poorly insulated... or some combination of these.
- Food is at least $600.00 for 2 teenagers? Sounds like you need a Costco membership.
- School expenses monthly are about $75.00 (bus passes, extra course costs,class trips). Okay... that sounds reasonable. I personally don't have that expense because my kids walk to school... the only costs I have are for the odd school trip which hasn't exceeded $20 on any given month for both kids.
- Clothing $50.00 (including uniforms, shoes, boots, winter coats, etc..)? Slightly high... I don't even spend that on myself... but then I'm not growing anymore either. And I definitely don't spend quite that on my kids... yet (my kids are 5 and 8 respectively)
- Sporting activities including registration, equipment and mileage to and from events $100.00? $1200 a year? Ever hear of a place called "Play it again sports" on the Queensway? Great place... you can buy used and new stuff there. And when the kids grow out of it, you can trade it in and get credit towards other new/used equipment. My kids' school rents their skates from that store for kids that don't have them.po
- Haircuts and other personal grooming supplies $25.00... I personally spend about half that on my kids... but then my kids are younger.
There is no doubt that you're inflating the costs of the child-portion of 'needs'... BUT... let's put that to the side for a moment.
But there are some other principals at play here (and this is more of a general statement directed at all):
-Lizbeth has effectively proven that the $2500/month that OP discussed is waaaaay excessive if we are going to follow the principle of that child support is for the child's NEEDS. And whether or not it's reasonable and if it'll stand in court, given that it's right in-line with guidelines and given that it FAR EXCEEDS what is needed to cover a Child's NEEDS, it'll likely hold up in court... but to make it ironclad, instead of putting a dollar amount, just say that what will be paid will be according to what is listed in the Canadian Guidelines. That way, if a judge tosses that, he/she is effectively saying the Canadian Guidelines are unreasonable. I don't see a judge doing that. The $2500/month mentioned by OP is EXCEPTIONALLY GENEROUS... This more that covers 100% of the costs of raising a child... which leads to my next point...
-Child support is *supposed* to be just a 50% SHARE of the total costs in theory. That means that when the guidelines say $2500/month is to be paid, it means that the government is estimating that the cost of $5000/month. The Canadian government's guidelines seem to have some very strange ideas about NEEDS and what it costs to raise a child. As for the $1600/month you spend on your kids Lizbeth? That means that in theory, your Ex shouldn't be paying more than $800/month... which is his share. Is that what he pays or is he on the hook for more?
-The recent posts between BDJ and KristinZ (and others) have made one thing clear... there are SOME CP's out there that view their Ex's as walking wallets and little else and have NO INTEREST in any form of equality when it comes to raising the kids. After all... wouldn't it make sense that if a woman has no career, that the father takes full custody for a while so she can GET A CAREER? Note that this DOES NOT mean that she gets cut off from the kids in any way... or at least not any more than any man is when he is NOT the CP.
(SIDENOTE: I'm personally doing a derivative of this with my Ex.)
This would be beneficial for all in involved. The only reason to be opposed to that would be that the CP in question HAS NO INTEREST in getting a career and instead just wants to Punish the NCP. And that leads to my next point...
-The Australian System. I'm not pushing for an Australian style system because I'll save me money personally. For me, it'll make very little difference. The best thing about that system is that right from the outset, it is assumed and ACTIVELY ENCOURAGES and gives FINANCIAL CREDIT for both parents being involved. The less you're involved, the more you pay. Also, that system Assumes that Child Support is just that... for the child... not to maintain the Ex's lifestyle. Also under that system, Spousal Support is RARELY awarded because it is assumed that a woman is JUST AS CAPABLE at working and providing as a man is. Another HUGE benefit to that system is that it is VERY TRANSPARENT and accounts for a wide range of situations... which greatly reduces or eliminates the need to involve lawyers that retire at the age of 45 and get Barracudas given to them as retirement gifts from the law firms that employed them.
-My final point... Misandrists VS Feminists. In my view, there is a huge difference between a Feminist and a Misandrist. A Feminist, for example, will promote equality. A Misandrist will promote INequality and try to market it as equality via half-truths and disinformation. There are some on this thread who *think* they are feminists, when in fact they are Misandrists. I like feminists. I even had a well known feminist as one of my profs in University and I liked her and she was a good teacher. Misandrists, on the other hand, I can't stand. Misandrists, like Misogynists, don't deserve courtesy or respect until they change their ways and views.
My choice to stay home and the fact that it was possible for me to do so should not be the burr in your arse that it seems to be..but I take great pleasure in the fact that it is...
NOTHING is stopping ME from making the big bucks...if that is what I want...
And here we have a perfect Misandrist statement. The decision for you to stay home wasn't a mutual choice as it should be, it supposedly was YOUR CHOICE and ONLY YOUR CHOICE.
And there's NOTHING stopping you from making the big bucks? So what would be your motivation NOT to? Hmmm? Don't you want to be the best provider to your kids that you possibly could be? Or are you nice and comfortable on the gravy train your Ex provides? Getting pleasure out of making him suffer by any chance?
SIDENOTE: My Ex stayed home too when the kids were small... but that was a MUTUAL decision. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/1/2009 9:51:51 AM |
My point was that the expenses associated with having physical custody of children were considerably higher than what some people were suggesting.
Yes, and the advantages of having physical custody are also considerably higher...
1... You have the kids all or almost all the time... I know lots of people who would pay big bucks for that privilege...
2... You get to mold and raise the kids YOUR way for the most part... in other words, you get to make sure they turn out the way YOU want them too...
3... You don't have the heartache of only seeing your kids when it's convenient for everyone... or when the custody agreement says so...
4... They are with you so you get to do things with them on the spur-of-the-moment. you don't have to 'book an appointment' to see your kids or to do things with them...
5... Unless you do something catastrophic, you end up effectively being the child's main parent... with all the love and compensations that brings...
6... At night, YOU know where YOUR kids are, and that they're SAFE...
7... You get to spend incidental time with your kid(s)... breakfast table, dinners, bedtimes... as I said lot's of people would pay big bucks for that privilege....
And don't forget...
Some NCP parents still have to maintain an extra bedroom(s) and pay higher rent to allow the kid(s) to stay overnight for visits etc... That rent doesn't get reduced just because the kid(s) are only there a couple of days a month....
Likewise, extra food, spare clothing,bed, bedding, furniture and all the other incidentals have to be available... car seat... if needed...
It's funny, but almost none of the CP's have pointed out that the kid(s) are a blessing to have. All I see is how "they cost".... Some of these CP's should be ashamed of themselves... What a bunch of whining self-pitying people.... If the kid is hurting your pocket book that badly then give up something else. And be reasonable...
Kids do not NEED after school activities/sports... they often don't even want them... it's usually the parent that signs them up... but either way, it's not a necessity.... They need excercise, kick them off the X-Box, or computer, and send them out to play....
Kids do not NEED cable TV... rabbit ears will work wonders.... or do without....Ever hear of the library...? They have these things called 'books'.... It's like TV only you do it yourself in your mind.... the bonus, they promote an activity called 'thinking'.... Hey they even have DVD's and music and videos to borrow also... and there's no rental fees....
Kids do not NEED a cell phone... a handful of change and a payphone will do for emergencies... worked when I grew up.... Texting? Give them a pencil and notepad...
Kids do not NEED designer clothes... Walmart will do fine...
Kids do not NEED ski trips...
Kids do not NEED a ride everywhere... save gas, give them some more excercise... kids are like dogs, tired dogs don't get bored and into trouble...
Kids do not NEED Ipods...or laptops...or their own stereo or TV in their room....
Kids do not NEED a Playstation3 or XBox... do something with the kid you clamoured t0o get custody of. Don't let a Made in Asia electronic toy or the TV become a surrogate parent.... you wanted custody and to be a parent, now get off your ass and be one....
Kids do not NEED junk food.... Spend the extra time to shop properly. The local 7-11 convenience store is NOT a supermarket... save some money... shop sensibly...
If you have cookies and other junk in the cupboard and you have no money at the end of the month it's YOUR fault...
YOU are the parent in charge of YOUR kid(s)... if you can't manage then YOU are doing something wrong... your prime responsibility is to your progeny.... be responsible.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/1/2009 2:49:31 PM |
*cluck* *cluck*
There it is again.
So this comment and the previous one about ruffling of feathers isn't sexist when I thought your oh-so-clever chick dictionary comment was offensive...right. Just infantile, I guess. I'll try to avoid calling you names, though. I guess the gross generalization about all women wasn't sexist either, not to mention the fact that you have no right to speak for women.
and don't think we haven't noticed your clever attempt to dodge the last statement I made either...
I responded to your statements and then some. You never responded to any of my points; you probably realized after the fact how absurd it would be to hand over the custody of children to the parent who earns the most....
you don't wanna play
Don't have kids? Then maybe it is all play to you. It's pretty serious to me.
just feel free to wave the white flag anytime
Now THAT IS funny. | |
|
|
| Page 29 of 32
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 |
|
Home
login 
