|
|
|
|
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 7:32:13 AM | Several thoughts...
1) Estimates of what percentage of "child support" payments actually get spent on children range between 20-40%.
2) The custodial parent (90-95% of the time will be the mother, even if the father wanted them and has NOTHING to indicate he's any worse of a parent than the mother) has NO legal obligation to spend ANY of CS money on the kids.
3) The amount of money that foster parents are paid each month to take care of a child in their custody is what each state has determined is the REAL cost of adequately taking care of a child. I don't think that in justice that any mandatory involuntary interhousehold CS award should ever exceed that.
Here's what those are (from an October 2007 report): The monthly rates recommended by the report, averaged out on a national basis, were $629 for 2-year-olds, $721 for 9-year-olds and $790 for 16-year-olds. Currently, the average actual monthly base rates offered by states are $488 for 2-year-olds, $509 for 9-year-olds and $568 for 16-year-olds.
4) Child support is historically (until relatively recently) been understood to be what a father provides HIS children in HIS household, and is not money but food, clothing, etc. If his children are removed from his household through no choice or fault of his own, arguably he has had his ability (and obligation) to provide CS removed as well, until such time as his still-minor children are returned to his household.
5) Any woman posting here that a legally blameless father hit by a no-fault divorce owes most of his income (no matter how much above the childrens's actual needs as defined in #3) as CS/alimony post-divorce, even if his ex is able-bodied and thus equally capable of working, is IMO going to permanently get crossed off the "marriageable" list by any male on this site who reads that post. | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:03:03 AM |
Guy makes 300K a year.. and thinks his 2 children will be adequately supported on less than 1/10th of that amount a year? Me thinks those kids will be used to a much higher standard of living and much whining will ensue lol.
$5,000 per month for two kids is more than adequate to feed, cloth and pay for these children's activities including daycare. It might not be enough to support and subsidize HER lifestyle though. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:30:31 AM |
Show me 1 man who has free access to their kids and doesnt want to take care of them and I'll show you 10 women who live off the child support they receive from their rich exs.
starfun7 . Thank you for being a voice of reason. Some of your fellow female poster's attitude reinforce why more and more men choose to defer marriage and children. It is clarly an entitlement attitude that comes accross as these female posters have no ethical and moral standards what so ever. They hide their true agenda behind a thin vail of deception giving rationals such as "the child's standard of living". This is not about the children, its about them and their self-assumed entitled right to secure a free ride on someone elses behalf.
Unfortunately, I am not able to show you one man who have free access to his child/children and does not want to take care of them. But I know of several cases where excessive child support and alimony provides for a life of luxury for the woman. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 8:38:11 AM |
Show me 1 man who has free access to their kids and doesnt want to take care of them and I'll show you 10 women who live off the child support they receive from their rich exs.
I will call you on that........ I love that most men do....... but girl..... there are those......who won't.....just won't..... and can come up with 1000 reasons why they "can't". So, I continue (without the court system involved at all) and struggle to make ends meet. The women (and men) who recieve an over abundance of $$$ for child support are the minority.
I'm a "woman in North America". I have it any way but easy.......... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 9:41:02 AM | "Providing $3000/per month for the kids is definitely not being selfish or denying a child needs. That is even definitely over the top! What is the woman bringing to the table? Being a billionaire doesnt mean you spend a million$$$ on your kid(s) annually. This is absoluetly ridiculous to think that having a child(ren) with a rich person entitles you to an open bank!!!"
I never said that. I do think that many women are users but the men who end up with those women need to accept their share of the blame. There are lots of great women out there who would never judge or use a man based on his money. However, these type of men are so impressed with expensive haircuts, and perfumes, and nail jobs, and clothes, and accessories.... they end up with the women who need lots of money to live on and whose lifestyles are "interrupted" by their bearing children for these men. They feel entitled to be able to keep that lifestyle AND the children. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying these guys need to WAKE UP and stay away from these women or quit complaining. Or stop getting married. Oh yeah! But they want their children to be "legitimate". They are often users just as much as the women. I think both are wrong and I can't relate to either.
What I do believe is that one should not get married until they are ready to actually share their lives 100%! Marriage is two people deciding to share a life. Lots of people have made it into some temporary business contract for as long as it is suitable for both people but just because self-centered, greedy people have used it for their own purposes doesn't change what it is supposed to be. By default, it cannot be a true marriage if you enter into it with a pre-nup. In this case, and probably many others, it is simply a business arrangement to keep the children legitimate, maybe impress the right people, make sex more convenient, other reasons perhaps....
I also still believe that it is selfish to think that your children deserve any lower level of a lifestyle than you do so I don't think the lack of a maximum is a bad thing (I also support the flat tax- but lots of people in this country believe the rich should be treated better than everyone else 'cause they somehow worked harder for their money?!? That's not true and I don't subscribe to that notion). If you brought them into the world but believe that anything you have shouldn't also be theirs, you ARE selfish. I'm just calling it what it is, not saying you don't have a right to be. You worked hard for it, perhaps you have every right to. Maybe your 17 year old daughter absolutely should be expected to work hard and long enough to afford a good car, even though you already have 5!
I also believe that child support should go to the children. I don't believe the spouse should have the right to spend it as they please. I've dated too many men who are bitter and angry because their exes are buying furniture, houses, cars, or traveling on their child support while they struggle to pay it. That is SO wrong. I think it should work something like the food stamp cards, where the amount is held on some account and can only be spent on certain things like children's clothes, food, education etc. With more and more states picking up the issue of "father's rights" (Tennessee is a good one that I know of ), perhaps a better solution is coming.
I also agree that anyone who isn't in the position to actually provide for the children shouldn't have the right to be the custodial parent. I think exceptions should be made for women (or men) who specifically entered into agreements to stay home and raise the children to a certain age. Even then, after a reasonable amount of time, that person should be able to show some financial progress and independence. Again, probably a ways off but it is more fair than what we have.
So lest I am painted a gold-digger, I am so far from it. But let's put the blame on both sides. It is BOTH greedy rich people who are afraid of being "taken" AND users who are playing them that have caused these situations. Neither are very "marriable" and yet they marry anyway. *sigh* At least they keep lots of lawyers employed. | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:25:45 AM | In Canada, amounts payable for child maintenance are set by Federal Government Guidelines and are based on the income of BOTH parties and it's the law that you pay (or else). It is calculated on the difference between the two incomes if there is joint custody. In the case of sole custody, the maintenance is paid by the non-custodial parent.
Twisted: Not sure where this idea comes from. In Canada the amounts used for calculation of cs is based on income earned . Joint custody is not something that lowers or reduces cs despite what some may or would like to see. The term joint custody has no real meaning other than having a say in all important decisions regarding the raising of the child.
The non custodial parent pays cs to the custodial parent regardless of the income of custodial parent or even the combined income if the custodial parent has remarried.
The only time a combined income is calculated is if the non custodial parent claims undue hardships which is usually impossible or unavailable. And I say unavailable because the ones who could use this supposedly often are unable to get the legal help to see this through...and the ones who can afford the legal help...do not really qualify.
And shared custody or where the 40% threshold is reached is where they use the offsetting income calculations that you speak of under joint custody. However that offsetting calculation of income for cs has now been overturned in Federal Court.
Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, [2005]
100 In short, s. 9 requires judges to fix child support in shared custody arrangements without the benefits and constraints of a mandatory grid. This deliberate rejection by Parliament of a precise formula or methodology does not authorize the courts to conjure one up from the void.
101 For many years Canadian courts took guidance from Kelly J.A.’s finding in Paras that “the objective of maintenance should be, as far as possible, to continue the availability to the children of the same standard of living as that which they would have enjoyed had the family break-up not occurred”: see Paras v. Paras, [1971] 1 O.R. 130 (C.A.), at p. 134.
So now cs is paid in full for sole custody...joint custody where primary residence is with the mother...and now thanks to this Supreme Court Decision in shared custody where initial primary custody was with the mother and later changed to reflect the interest of the child to spend more time with the the non custodial parent.
What I don't understand is why people whine about paying child maintenance. If you say you love your kids, put your money where your mouth is. You cannot waive your child's right to maintenance nowadays. I did waive it when my children were minors, as back then you could. The reason I did it was because I didn't want someone holding money over my head every month. My approach was "just let the process server serve the papers on you and stick your money where the sun don't shine".
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.
The CS has at least in Canada a measurable level of spousal support built in and is illustrated in the Contino decision.
Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, [2005]
In my view, an appropriate support order in this case should ensure insofar as possible that xxnamexx, the child of the parties, enjoys a standard of living that is reasonably comparable to his standard of living before the divorce and does not vary markedly in material respects moving from one household to the other. The proper pursuit of this objective will of course bear in mind, as I indicated earlier, that child support aims to alleviate the economic impact of divorce on the child; it must not be turned into a ramrod for equalizing the incomes of former spouses.
104 Like Kelly J.A. (Paras, at pp. 134-35), I understand that the resources of both parents will frequently be inadequate after their physical separation to maintain their previous standard of living, under a single roof. Where the two conflict, it is the child’s standard of living and not theirs that is to be favoured.
The standard of living which favours the child then favours the custodial parent which in contested cases is the mother in 85% of the time. Please I am talking contested custody cases. But the tables and case law supports this premise which supports the child and then supports the custodial parent in a better lifestyle than she is able to live based on her own financial contributions. Child Support and Alimony are completely different yet there is a hidden aspect of alimony built into child support. The concept of the child not having a lowered standard of living is only recognized in the one home which often leaves the non custodial parent living below the standard enjoyed by the custodial parent.
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.
Daycare are additional costs that are payable over and above the tabled amounts for cs. So the non custodial parent pays cs[[[which is or is not including hidden spousal costs]] and you are then expected to pay child care costs split according to the income earned of each party. And then some are further expected to pay spousal support while the poor woman wails about yet something else?
So yes there are a few greedy custodial parents.....and the non custodial is still expected to pay all these things even if the mother re-marries and the income potential of the second husband is not to be considered unless of course....that marriage dissolves and she pursues cs for a second time using the same child. But I am sure you will suggest that is not greedy. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:31:56 AM |
^^^iago, what motivates you to make the above comment? In saying that, you are totally undermining any contribution the CP makes to raising the child....regardless of the CP's income.
I'm not undermining anything, just calling it as I see it. For example: I have my kids 50% of the time yet I pay my ex over $600/month. She owns her own home with a small mortgage but is worth about $250,000, has as much or more disposible income, yet she can afford to work part-time at slightly more than minimum wage. She's also able to do this because of tax credits for the kids.
It seems that many women don't see that they ought to trying to bring as much to the table financially as they possibly can. I know my ex doesn't see it that way. She could be making more than minimum wage and working full-time if she wanted. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:36:51 AM | Suckafish and similar who have a hard time believing women make money collecting child support:
There are all types of situations, some single moms are struggling and others are collecting outrageous CS and the kids see very little. I suggest you watch and read these posts to open your eyes.
As to the OP, if your friend already has concerns tell him to totally forget getting married and raising a family, it's guaranteed he's gonna get screwed. "lifestyle standards" aside it doesn't cost thousands a week to raise a kid... if it did all child support would be in the thousands instead of hundreds. and I think we all know that very little of his money would go directly to the kids, mom would be pissing it away on HER lifestyle. Remind him that raising a family is nice but not at all necessary. it's an option, not a requirement.
Someday the pendulum will swing to the center and then will be the time to marry and raise kids but for now if you don't want to get hosed don't take chances. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:37:31 AM |
In Canada, amounts payable for child maintenance are set by Federal Government Guidelines and are based on the income of BOTH parties and it's the law that you pay (or else). It is calculated on the difference between the two incomes if there is joint custody. In the case of sole custody, the maintenance is paid by the non-custodial parent. This is indeed how the computational method is assessed in circuit courts around the US. It doesn't make a ratzazz diff what the prenup says because it's a state-issued document; federal law takes precedence. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:37:54 AM | Starfun:
Weezygirl: It took 2 to produce the child yet its only 1 that is being fleeced here. During divorce and property split up, each takes what they want or feel they can afford. If you decide to take the gas guzzler SUV you dont go back to court to say you cant afford the gas so the other party should pay. Likewise if you cannot afford to take care of the child properly, then common-sense dictates that you let the person capable of doing a better job take over.
wow!!! I have no words, totally lost.. went to check your profile and now I understand - you don't have kids..
I don't believe one should ever compare SUV or anything material with kids. Yes, you can take and decide what you'd take from your householf and what your ex-partner will keep - but hold on! Are you saying that the parent (does not matter if it's mom or dad) who has less income or income “not sufficient” on it's own to take care of the child/ children should not "keep" the child/children? Where are the child's needs? Custody of child/children should not be dictated by who makes more money but where the child in question will have it's needs more likely met - and we are not talking about materialistic needs only - this is about love, taking care, protection, about where the child feels more home, comfortable and whom the child needs more at the point of its life!!! Many times because of the child's age it is the mother who is necessary to provide the child. So my point is - IMHO - you can take or not take "SUV" depending on the fact you knowing if you can afford it to drive...absolutely your choice
BUT
Getting custody of your child should be based on child’s needs and NOT on parent’s income…and that’s why CS exists, no? | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 10:47:43 AM | ^If it was simply about the child's needs then fathers would get custody at least %50 of the time in contested cases and the CS would be capped at some figure dreamed up to cover the costs and not the luxuries associated with raising a child.
There's nothing wrong with being obligated to pay more than is required to keep your children dressed, fed, and housed. The resentment is based on the fact that the current system does nothing to address the needs of the non-custodial parent. Usually this is the father but it applies to women as well of course. I doubt you'll meet many men who don't know some other guy at least who is getting taken to the cleaners due to CS. If he loses his job, he waits two months at least for a CS adjustment. If he overpaid, oh well for him. He could wait six months before getting a readjustment and in the meantime, just to live he requires every penny he can get his hands on. Meanwhile, the ex is demanding the cheque and saving up for that new car to replace the one purchased the year before. And if he doesn't make his payment then he potentially can wind up in prison or have his license taken away (that one always struck me as a stupid idea. If he can't get to work how the hell is he going to pay CS ?)
True, this isn't the norm but it's not that rare either. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:09:09 AM | The Courts ought to nullify it and these folks should not be allowed to marry. Anybody going into a marriage and seeking to hedge future divorce bets should not be getting married. Stay single
Too many variables to give you a good legal answer anyway. Children are not born yet. Which jurisdiction do they plan to reside in? Laws vary between countries, provinces and states. In Pennsylvania you can contractually agree to certain payments but I've never seen it done where there aren't any children born yet. Child support is the right of the child and is not as easily contracted away as in a pre-nup. Saty single | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:14:05 AM |
^If it was simply about the child's needs then fathers would get custody at least %50 of the time in contested cases and the CS would be capped at some figure dreamed up to cover the costs and not the luxuries associated with raising a child.
agree... I was commenting on attitude "who can afford the child"... manytimes only both parents TOGETHER can "afford" their child therefore after they split up one of them pays child support to custodial parent...they do not "give up" the child because they cannot afford it individually..they do not put the child for addoption...
OP I do absolutely agree there should be cap on the amount of CS
I do agree some women are missusing the legal system and some men are avoiding their parental responsibilities ( and same goes the opposite way too).
But one thing comes to my mind: all of you who say the woman should spend all child support $$ for childs needs should also understand that childs needs are not only shoes and clothes but shelter, partial utilities, food,etc....how do you exactly decide how much your child ate from all groceries brought into the house? how much heat was "used by your ex" (how dare she is to take "advantage" of use part of the cs on electricity bill?)... hmmm....yeah, right!
If law in general is missused it needs to be changed, that I do agree  | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 11:14:54 AM |
Custody of child/children should not be dictated by who makes more money but where the child in question will have it's needs more likely met - and we are not talking about materialistic needs only - this is about love, taking care, protection, about where the child feels more home, comfortable and whom the child needs more at the point of its life!!!
This reasoning is circular and self serving. Lets look at the reality behind such a claim. The reality is that women in 9 out of 10 cases will get majority custody. Does that mean that men are incapable of providing the same kind of love, protection and comfort as a woman? Note that men always hear that accidental pregnancies are joint responsibility…you know the statement: “it takes two to tango”. Yet when it comes to custody men are no longer treated with equality! As one poster said: "men are guilty until proven guilty"!
The only conclusion that I can draw from these types of statements is that everything can be rationalized as long as it serves the woman's purpose. It is selective equality at its best!! Once again....this is not about the needs of the child, its about the needs of the woman!! If she is incapable of providing or supporting herself because she either can't or chooses not to (which often is the case), then she has nobody but the person in the mirror to blame. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 12:11:44 PM | OP asked question:
They agree on having a max of 2 kids and he thinks a max of $2500/month for both kids should be more than enough (ie should the marriage breakdown)! He is British and she is Canadian.
Would the courts uphold this or nullify it and base it on his income? ....
the answer most people in this thread agreed on was that no prenuptial agreement can guarantee the amount of child support ..
now, all the discussion turned into gender bashing ....why? because posters here have life experiences from both sides and emotions are raw about this issue. The following statement as many before is very much understandable but onesided.
The only conclusion that I can draw from these types of statements is that everything can be rationalized as long as it serves the woman's purpose. It is selective equality at its best!! Once again....this is not about the needs of the child, its about the needs of the woman!! If she is incapable of providing or supporting herself because she either can't or chooses not to (which often is the case), then she has nobody but the person in the mirror to blame.
Please remember, all depends from which side are you looking at the issue... are you the dad who is taken to cleaners? or are you the mother who barely survive on one income to take care of family? both of them are most likely taken advantage of by two diffrent gender. So it's not man or woman in fault generaly - it's the law who enable to missuse the good intention of taking care of broken families. As I said before - our emotions should be directed to change what does not work...
Happy New Year
  | |
|
dei8
|
Joined: 9/9/2007
Msg: 68 | |
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 1:00:21 PM |
I'm not undermining anything, just calling it as I see it. For example: I have my kids 50% of the time yet I pay my ex over $600/month. She owns her own home with a small mortgage but is worth about $250,000, has as much or more disposable income, yet she can afford to work part-time at slightly more than minimum wage. She's also able to do this because of tax credits for the kids.
Have you ever looked at having her income potential imputed for cs calculations?
The woman love to complain when men under employ themselves to avoid cs obligations. | |
|
Oscat
|
Joined: 8/23/2007
Msg: 70 | |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 2:12:22 PM | Hmm..from the posts so far, I think the best option is for him not to marry at all or if he has to, then do it in UK or Sweden..and live there. The laws there seem to have some common sense to them.
Has anyone thought of how all these ridiculous CS payments is affecting the family structure? UK and Sweden has less CS payments yet rank higher than North america on table of standard of living for kids. Are the women there any different or more interested in the kids well-being than women here?
Im actually surprised that some women think that $2500/month for 2 kids is pauperish and "selfish" etc. I wonder how many kids fall under that bar in USA/Canada.
Thanks Starfun7 and others for the eye opener!! | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 2:16:09 PM | | First let me say I know absolutely nothing about British or Canadian law. In the US, you can include anything in a prenuptial agreement that both parties agree to. The only sticky thing I can see in your friend's situation is that if they happen to have more than 2 kids (accidents can happen, ya know), then she may end up not having enough child support for all the kids. They probably should include some kind of "just in case" clause for the kid situation. | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:00:26 PM | In most of the states (USA) - a prenup agreement cannot limit any child support or any other types of financial support for a child. This includes costs to maintain health insurance, or life insurance. A prenup agreement cannot predetermine issues relating to children including custody or parenting time.
Here are terms that can be negotiated in a prenup agreement:
#1 - The rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired or located;
#2 -The rights to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise manage and control property;
#3 -The disposition of property upon separation, marital dissolution, death, or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;
#4 -The modification or elimination of spousal support;
#5 -The making of a will, trust, or other arrangement to carry out the provisions of the agreement;
#6 -The ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit from a life insurance policy;
#7 -The choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and
#8 -Any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 3:37:21 PM |
Have you ever looked at having her income potential imputed for cs calculations?
I actually talked with a lawyer about that and a few other issues I was having with the ex around CS when she decided not to work for a while, which could have led to me having to pay her more money.
He basically told me I'd be an idiot to push the issue. He said if it went before a judge it would most likely end up costing me a lot more money because of a court case that went to the Supreme Court in Canada and by the fact that they brought in new CS tables in 2006. It would mean that I'd be paying almost $800/month and up to 80% of any extraneous costs.
He recommended that I let sleeping dogs lay.
So far the ex hasn't pushed for the new amount according to the new tables, but occasionally she lets me know that she still holds the club. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 12/31/2007 4:23:31 PM | "If the dad is living in a mansion why the hell should his kid live in a shack.
They shouldn't. They should live in the mansion with dad."
Now lets not be hasty, Dad never said that. Dad just wants to complain, its not like he really wants the kids. He just wants to complain about the cost of them. Whew that was a close one for Dad... | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
