|
|
|
|
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 8:42:25 AM |
It all boils down to the CP being PAID by the NCP to stay at home and live high on the hog on their money while they sit there and willingly piss away the opportunity to advance themselves because of the de facto response of "sacrifice"
The OP stated that for her high-earning friend, $2500 per month would be adequate child support for two children. I think we can reasonably agree that most CP are not in that income bracket, and would receive a good deal less than this for two children. So even in the higher paying scenario, the CP would bring in $30000 in CS. If you think a family of three living on $30000 a year is living HIGH ON THE HOG you are delusional. But wait, you say, the CP works, too. So they are way better off than $30000 a year. To which I say, the CP BETTER work, because when the child support ends, he/she will have to be self-supporting. So let's say that the CP does work, and earns another $40000 (before tax). This is a different picture altogether, and while they certainly would not be poor, I would suggest that $70000 (over half of which is subject to tax) is still not HIGH ON THE HOG, especially as this income is temporary, ending either when the kids turn eighteen, or when they leave school, depending on your agreement.
Like I said before, the attitude of some people (mostly women) who say they are going to "take him to the cleaners" is the kind of thing that gives all women a bad rap as greedy gold digging ****es. The fact that some people (mostly men) claim that the CP is LIVING HIGH ON THE HOG ON HIS MONEY is the thing that gives men a bad rap as cheap **stards.
Sometimes people recognize that the kid(s) would be better off living with the other person... as I did.... and not fight for custody... this is called putting the interests of the child above the interests of the parent... something that is so very rare.... yet, when it happens, people assume they 'didn't want the child'.... nice..
If you read what I said, you will see that I said "he" didn't want them, as in my ex-husband. I was referring to one person, not NCP's. I have known him for almost 25 years, and when I say he didn't want them, trust me, I know what I am talking about. I'm not saying he doesn't love them in his own way, and yes, clearly the children are better off with me, but my ex lives to work, travel, gamble and golf. He spends many, many hours on these pursuits and maybe three or four hours a week with his kids, who live a two minute car ride away, btw. I get along with him ok now, but he wasn't a good parent when we were together, and he still isn't. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 8:52:05 AM |
Like I said before, the attitude of some people (mostly women) who say they are going to "take him to the cleaners" is the kind of thing that gives all women a bad rap as greedy gold digging ****es. The fact that some people (mostly men) claim that the CP is LIVING HIGH ON THE HOG ON HIS MONEY is the thing that gives men a bad rap as cheap **stards.
And like *I've* said before...this is why puttin' the kids with the breadwinner makes sense because there you go again with the "hardship" story. If it's such a hardship, then the traditional CP would be more than happy to let the kids stay with the traditional NCP instead, because it'd be better for the kids, as well as better for the traditional CP because now they can go back to school and "better" themselves for the "sacrifice" they made previous to the split.
Your argument keeps going in the same circle like a dog chasing it's own tail.
And it's gettin' sad and not worth commenting on any further. Or are you hoping that if you say the same thing enough times that someone will sooner or later "come to your side"?
In any case, not worth commenting on any further. Circular arguments are just a waste of time and effort. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 12:09:15 PM | The idea of maintaining the same standard of living is idea and expectation that needs to be removed. The reason is that when the couple was together both incomes contributed to the household, now those same incomes have to contribute to two households. Maintaining the same standard of living is an unattainable goal.
This is unless you accept the fact that the ncp will have to have a lower standard of living post divorce since they will most likely not be residing in the same house etc...,
With that in mind, is it acceptable that the cp therefore has a higher standard of living than the ncp? The idea behind child support is so that the standards of living are equal. As the ncp (well for me only on paper since I calculated the number days my daughter stayed with me last month) 60% with me, 40% with my ex) still has to have rooms for the children, still has to have clothes etc...
But the way the courts and expectations are set out right now is that we are set up to fail since the same standard of living is only attainable if the ncp accepts a lower standard of living post divorce, which in my mind is not correct or equal. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 12:21:27 PM | "NEWSFLASH***.The reason women get custody 9 times out of 10 is because they are the ones who have been the primary caregiver DURING the marriage or relationship before it broke down"
No, women are assumed to be the primary caregiver by the courts, one of the stereotypes that needs to broken since most couples I know both parents work.
"Let's imagine a world where the MAJORITY of fathers would sacrifice their careers and be dedicated to a newborn child until they reached the age of 5.... "
Up until a (sorry can't remember how many years ago) number a years ago the employment insurance benefits were not available to men so they could not take the time, It has now changed.
"ou guys already FU the honour system 30 years ago...that is why we have child support tables these days...that is the legacy men have inheriated from the previous generation...."
and to think you actually believe what your wrote up above. Two reasons why the child support tables came into effect 1. previously it was based on common law and at the sole discretion of the judge - with wide swings and no standardization in child support awards there was no continuity within the system or awards. By putting the child support tables in place it gave the judicial system balance rather than simply the judges coming up with numbers. The lack of continuity was tying up the courts due to the varying awards 2. The child support tables were put in place along with the change from taxable to non-table because it saved he government money. With the differences in the marginal tax rates from the payer to the recipient the government estimated it would approximately $1 Billion. So, it as nothing to do with the men not paying.
Now if you had said the out sourced collection agencies then I agree but that wouldn't have support your argument would it. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 12:23:55 PM |
In any case, not worth commenting on any further. Circular arguments are just a waste of time and effort.
I concur. A person who thinks that automatically granting custody of children to the partner who earns the most money is incapable of listening to reason. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 12:28:25 PM | "this is why puttin' the kids with the breadwinner makes sense because there you go again with the 'hardship' story."
Indeed.
If 50/50 custody is out of the question, why to award custody to the less capable parent?
While I'm not advocating for parents -regardless of gender- to be exempted from providing for the wellbeing of their children under any circumstances and it's their responsability to guarantee such welfare by all necessary sacrifices in order to comply with their moral and financial obligations, why to condone the existance of a child to be used as source of income for the CP placing the NCP with an amount of child support payments well in excess of material child's needs?
In the ideal world, before to be parents we should previously have the emotional and financial stability to become ones.
In the real world, more often than it should be, we have them by emotional fulfillment of the self regardless the material foundation to be good providers.
And in our present world where for some people marriage has become a new form of legal prostitution and popping up children is deemed as a parasite source of income... what is wrong, in the best interest of the child -again, if not 50/50- to set custody on the best provider parent?
People who get married are not the same in case of divorce and while the law is not to tell anyone what to do but, what can't be done... all the letter of law is as good as the loophole to be found and manipulation of the system is as fact to be faced, dealed and solved it instead to critice it without offering solutions.
Reality is: divorce has become an industry, paternity fraud is rampant, courts are biased toward women in times of 'equality', children are used as pawn by parent alineation practice and lack of accountabilities for our actions has been replaced for the unfair practice of making men disposables entities in family separation process.
Why to allow marriage and parenthood being assumed/apporached/used as source of income for selfish and opportunistic people who don't qualify to be parents in the first place?
If a financial hardship from one parent makes difficult to meet the end of the implicit responsabilities of raising such child... whitout getting into the easy living from taxpayers' money... why the tendecies to mostly/automatically set custody on women, disregarding men abilities for good parenting skills, when precisely are women the ones deemed as the poorest social class?
The topic of the thread, prenup and child support payments as a whole, can't be combined on the terms for agreeement.
One is a social contract between parties getting married while the other is solely handled by court authority, therefore, one is excluded from the other and any provision in that regard will make the prenup legally invalid.
However, the issue of child support, while solely determined by court ruling based on pre-stablished guidelines for calculus and implementation, doesn't preclude, nor exclude the fact of personal estimate for a predetermined notion of an amount enough to cover the child needs .
If an amount assigned in child support is well beyond the child needs according to the present standards of living and more than a luxury enjoying for that child is a practical represented 'gift' to the CP just for having such child, I believe too, that the better off financially parent should have custody of the child is money is the issue discuss - again, if 50/50 child's custody is out of the question.
On one hand, the fact of the existance of child support payments as a possible source for income for the NCP is eliminated leading to the erradication of a parasite way of life; on the other the less financially stable CP is liberated from the burden of raising a child if unable to have the common sense to avoid parenthood when material condition while at the same time doesn't exist while at the same time, has the extra time to pursue futher education and/or training for better job skills and overall is a sure way that the best interests of the child -regarding its economical welfare- are guaranteed.
I fail to see how that provision, when 50/50 custody is not set, is a detriment for the poorest NCP to fully be involvement with the emotional child's life having the real intention to really being a good economical provider all and by its own. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 1:00:45 PM |
I concur. A person who thinks that automatically granting custody of children to the partner who earns the most money is incapable of listening to reason.
obviously no one is saying to just give the person custody automatically if they make more money..that would be absurd...because obviously if that "richer" person has shown that he/she is not capable of raising a child he/she should not get it...I and the rest of the others are talking in the event that both parents are capable of raising the child quite well (not talking the financial side here)..so yes as long as the much richer parent is capable of raising the child well he/she should get custody if the other parent will have financial problems raising the child.... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 2:44:38 PM |
so yes as long as the much richer parent is capable of raising the child well he/she should get custody if the other parent will have financial problems raising the child....
In most cases there's a better choice for the children, independent of money. Rarely would the children have the exact same life, and the exact same level upbringing by both parents, and when they do, you see more split custody and less child support.
The great thing about CS for children is that they can live with either parent and hopefully have all of their financial needs met. So it frees up the parents and the courts to base the decison based on the REALY important things. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 3:24:53 PM |
obviously no one is saying to just give the person custody automatically if they make more money..that would be absurd...
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and the fact that you see the absurdity shows that you are capable of rational thought; in fact there is much more to consider than money when raising a child.
I was actually responding to this little gem posted by BDJ:
Not only is it NOT absurd to place the child in custody of the parent who earns the most...it should be the way it's ALWAYS handled. Then there's no whining about how much or how little the CP gets for CS. If they have less and are worried about the financial hardships, then give the custody to the breadwinner. Problem solved.
So yea, not only not absurd...NEEDED is the word I'd use. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 3:37:37 PM | A person who thinks that automatically granting custody of children to the partner who earns the most money is incapable of listening to reason.
Incapable of listening to reason, huh?
Do you have any suggestions on how to get through to people who are incapable of listening to reason?
Because there's a ton of BS in this thread about exorbitant CS payments that doesn't stand to reason. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 4:57:49 PM | So it frees up the parents and the courts to base the decison based on the REALY important things.
Depending on where you are perhaps. In Canada, it's easier for the courts if they base custody on child support. Keeping custody below the 60/40 split, all they have to do is take the NCP's gross salary, the number of kids, and look on the chart for that province and poof! Child support! CP gets everything.
Sharing custody means both parents' incomes are taken into account, number of children, and then child support is based on the difference between support amounts in that province that either would pay. But then it also has to be be decided; who gets to claim the child as a dependent at income tax time, who gets the CTB, who gets the CTC, who gets the UCCB, does the claim of these tax benefits/credits alternate from year to year, or does one party collect and then share equally with the other, etc, etc etc?
Which option do you think really frees up the courts? The status quo has become the status quo because it's time efficient. In Canada, custody is based on child support. That's why when any NCP fights for custody (even if it's nothing more than shared) of their children, it's automatically assumed that they're only doing it to get out of paying child support. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/4/2009 10:40:12 PM |
Incapable of listening to reason, huh?
Do you have any suggestions on how to get through to people who are incapable of listening to reason?
Because there's a ton of BS in this thread about exorbitant CS payments that doesn't stand to reason.
Yea Verity...don't expect anything but another "tail wags dog" reply to that question.
That's why when any NCP fights for custody (even if it's nothing more than shared) of their children, it's automatically assumed that they're only doing it to get out of paying child support.
Yea, and again WHO is it that barks the loudest about that? I'll give ya 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.
Though it does involve a circular pattern and the word "unreasonable" thrown in for good measure if a man doesn't play "follow the leader"... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 2:42:19 AM | That's the great thing...a nanny to care for your kids 8 hours a day (assuming a typical 40 hour work week) is FAR LESS than having to pay some greedy vulture (see: ex) for the cost of 100% of raising the kids AND to pay for her own personal endowment as well on top of that.~BigDaddyJinx~
^^^Pump the brakes there BDJ... ...back that trailer back up big man...
Fist of all, the reason you shouldn't be giving any opinions on how to raise children in the midst of a seperation is because you are
A) childless
B) have serious chauvenistic tendancies..read your profile...along with your posts...(you FAIL BTW)
C) You are delusional to the point that you think raising kids is only a 40 hour pr/week job.
D) The intent of your posts are (although entertaining 2 me) are meant to demean and dominate single Mom's and basically women in general....
Good for you though...How long did it take you to have the ability to kiss your own arse without getting a nugget on your nose?...sorry I meant... How much longer do you think it will take you!!
What's pathetic is the overcooked argument about sacrifice. Like women are somehow trying to justify their greed with the "sacrifice" they made. Again detracting from the intent which was to allow them the time to get back to school and better educate themselves, or re-establish their careers they may or may not have left behind. But that gets cleanly rolled under the rug for barking about "sacrifice". It all boils down to the CP being PAID by the NCP to stay at home and live high on the hog on their money while they sit there and willingly piss away the opportunity to advance themselves because of the de facto response of "sacrifice".
They'd have to get a job.
or
They'd have to go back to school.
and
They'd have to VISIT much like we see the NCP's do now.
Good enough for all the men out there...but soon as women would be expected to do the same, now it's about "sacrifice" and gettin their just dues?
I'm gonna vomit....~BigDaddyJinx~
^^^^Perhaps it the stench of BS coming out of your mouth or stuck to your nose that is making you queezy..choke it back tough guy...because I don't want you puking on my new shoes!
I hope you realize that you are doing no service to men that are stuck in that in between bitter mode of a divorce by spouting the crap you do here. You have definately expressed little or no interest nor offered any helpful or concerned comments about the kids that are stuck in the middle....
Here's the thing, I don't give a crap about the sob stories and manipulating arguements that alot of men on these single parents forums like to put forth.
Your either in as a parent...or your out for yourself...you reap what you sow...
Being that women are nuturing and men are hunters..(or so they say)..men need to realize they are no longer free to eat what they kill at will.
. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 4:15:39 AM | You know as I have read much of this stuff, it brings back memories.
Some very fascinating memories.
One of the things I learned was about CS, my mother told me it was £20 a week my father gave her - so I then asked my father, he was curious so I explained a bit and asked him to show me the deductions, what I saw was something else entirely different - he never knew what she told me.
No offense to the many single mothers who have done things differently. This sort of behaviour, amoung many other things that I have not mentioned, prompts me to question things more so. Its not that I beleive all women are this way - then again little things like 75% of all divorces are called for by women, doesnt exactly lend to a view that many if not most women are not somewhat alike this. It is all a very complicated mess - even just reviewing this thread.
For those that talk almost solely of costs and its hardships - are you really surprised that arguements based on money alone are thrown back? I ponder as to what some are aiming to achieve.
There really is a marvelous aspect to the human spirit that seems to be amazing at latching to the fears and concerns from so many areas that inexplicably renders what could so easily be something so much more considerate for all concerned. A child is not just effected by the stability of funds or even if the CP is recieving as much as possible as the law will allow, but also by the relations between both parents as well the stability behind them both living healthy lives too - in the eyes of most children, ideally together.
So far I can conclude that I have seen a lot about fear and hurts, most of which have little to do with what has been expressed here between the various people participating and much on what they themselves have experienced. I can also conclude that mixed with it is also has a lot concern over children.
If you care for the child more than your wounds - I suggest that your choices of what you wish to speak of proves it. Although I guess that is harder when the sbject at hand is on a nerve.
PreNups - sure, its like insurance. Although I dont believe they are legal here.
MaxChild support - well my views above pretty much cover that - I would rather joint and to make arrangements and agreements that are rolling according to requirements.
If one month one has the kids more - its only reasonable something extra go there to aid, vice versa. a joint acct could be set up to act as a pool of resources to assist, perhaps. Ah but then what sort of characters would stand such tests of personal decency to honour such arrangements. I ponder just how many women here could really be expected to hold fast with such a thing. (I am a man, I have more concern on how I could expect a woman to act).
I have my reservations, but then I only need one decent woman should I ever decide to father. Theres what 6 billion people? about half are female? Theres bound to be one I can find, should I decide to go such a way.
**for those that do not think my lack of being a parent somehow discounts me from a voice - I have my reasons as to why I have a view I have shared 3 of them here, albeit 1 is implied. The potential to find my self one day as one, in all probabilty as the world works, as an NCP. These are not all of my reasons.
I have said my piece. Enjoy. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 6:29:02 AM | Sharing custody means both parents' incomes are taken into account, number of children, and then child support is based on the difference between support amounts in that province that either would pay. But then it also has to be be decided; who gets to claim the child as a dependent at income tax time, who gets the CTB, who gets the CTC, who gets the UCCB, does the claim of these tax benefits/credits alternate from year to year, or does one party collect and then share equally with the other, etc, etc etc?
Which option do you think really frees up the courts? The status quo has become the status quo because it's time efficient. In Canada, custody is based on child support. That's why when any NCP fights for custody (even if it's nothing more than shared) of their children, it's automatically assumed that they're only doing it to get out of paying child support. ~Mr. Blblblbl~
^^^those are very valid questions. I am impressed with the way you phrased it too.
Before this thread get's closed down for the pissong matches that have gone on here for the last few days ( myself excluded of course  )...I would love to see you pose these questions in a new thread. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 8:41:24 AM | "Which option do you think really frees up the courts? The status quo has become the status quo because it's time efficient. In Canada, custody is based on child support. That's why when any NCP fights for custody (even if it's nothing more than shared) of their children, it's automatically assumed that they're only doing it to get out of paying child support. ~Mr. Blblblbl"
So in effect the courts and both parents are taking the easy route. Implementing shared parenting means that both parents would have to work together. But what is the incentive of the potential cp to work with the person who would become the ncp. They will be giving up allot of time with the children, giving up child support and the tax deductions / breaks that go along with it.
In my opinion we shouldn't be doing something just because it is easier. The starting point should then be changed to shared parenting and then arguments presented as to why this should not be the case. For abusive parents, skip right cp and ncp - no questions on that one.
This though was tried about 10 years ago in Canada under the Joint Committe on Custody and Access. Lesson learned for those who try again is that you have to engage the women's groups in the process. The reason for this is that they do not want any change to the divorce act to shared parenting due to violence against women and children. You would then need to build into that process right from the start a manner which addresses violence against women and children so that the abusive partner cannot use the presumption of shared parenting to further torment. We tried several ways to address this but to this day they are firmly entrenched that no changes. They are also very well funded and with a number of them being are own government ministries or branches of them. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 9:30:13 AM |
Fist of all, the reason you shouldn't be giving any opinions on how to raise children in the midst of a seperation is because you are
I'll tell ya what - just as soon as YOU get to rewrite the rules of the world about who can and cannot post opinions, then I'l listen. Til then, I'd suggest that you come down from your ivory tower.
Tellin' people who should and shouldn't be posting opinions...unreal. And expected. 
And just FYI - ya *might* wanna keep the namecalling/flamebaiting to a minimum...that's a great way to get yourself banned...hint hint. | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 10:35:46 AM | BDJ,
Something in Lizbeth's last two posts was reminding me of something and I couldn't quite put my finger on it... and then it hit me... it was this:
http://www.dilbert.com/fast/1997-12-13/
In that comic, where Alice is using her procrastination to make herself look like a martyr, Lizbeth is using her kids to make herself look like a martyr.
But in both cases, the martyrdom is fake because it's done by choice.
And like Alice in the comic, people like Lizbeth want to silence people like you and me for identifying and articulating *their* BS.
And Lizbeth, that ties in with your statement:
my post to you was meant to be rhetorical (meaning no response neccessary)..However, since you insist on commenting again..and again..and shoving your Femi/Misogynist views about women...I will feel compelled to call BS on almost all of your posts, that basically defines the tantrum and opinions of a toddler. I thought I put you in time out a while ago??...
YOU are having your BS challenged and you don't like it one bit and you think you're gonna silence us.
And I have "Femi/Misogynist" views???
What the hell is that? Femi... Misogynist... hmmm... my views are Feminist AND a misogynist at the same time... ?!?...
Really Lizbeth... you're making a fool of yourself with a statement like that. It's just more of the misandrist in you talking... Misandrist being "one who has contempt for boys/men".
I do not have contempt for women OR feminists... but I DO have contempt for Misandrists...
As for the rest of that post... BDJ debunked it sufficiently already... as did I with my own personal direct experiences in previous posts... not that you comprehended what was said.
But I am going to address this statement:
^^^Actually, I am surprised that you were able to distinguish the actual amount of child support I get from my ex....However, that is an amount I have comprimised with my ex, even though he still makes 4 times the amount I do every year. There are extenuating circumstances with his finances and past ex...so maybe now I am not as big of a misogynist as you implied me to be??.
I never said you are a misogynist (one who has contempt for girls/women), I said you are a misandrist. And your statement doesn't change my view for one simple reason... your statement that your Ex makes "4 times what you make" but due to "extenuating circumstances", you agreed on much less. Hmmm... could it be that his TAKE HOME pay is way way WAY less than "4 times what you make" perhaps?
The truth I suspect that the statement about how much money your Ex makes is a half-truth.... Like looking at business revenue and saying that is his "income" without deducting mandatory business expenses first.
But that's just a guess... An educated one based stuff I've read.
You're attempting to paint him to be soooo well off and because you're a (fake) martyr, he continues to have it good...
I bet that the truth is that you probably *can't* get more or he'll have to give up "luxuries" like food and shelter... and even if you took him to court, you know you're not gonna get anywhere at the end of the day after everyone pays the lawyers and court fees... OR you're smart enough to figure out that if he doesn't have enough money to live, he's gonna die (by either stress or starvation)... and if he dies, the supply of money dies too.
And that makes me think of Vanguy... what happens to his Ex if he drops dead tomorrow?
I bet there's a good chance she'd have a "Miraculous Recovery".... I've met people who are constantly "sick"... I've seen the mentality in action and they're often "sick" with stuff that's difficult or impossible to disprove and where there is no clear treatment.
But anyway Lizbeth... whether the monthly about is $1000/month or $1600/month, either way, it just goes to show that $2500/month discussed by OP goes way beyond a child's support needs and shows that the child support system in Canada is a deranged and murky spousal/child support hybrid where there's double dipping going on and not too much accountability... except for the payors... who are men most of the time due to built-in biases and misandry. | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 10:53:07 AM | I'll tell ya what - just as soon as YOU get to rewrite the rules of the world about who can and cannot post opinions, then I'l listen. Til then, I'd suggest that you come down from your ivory tower.
Tellin' people who should and shouldn't be posting opinions...unreal. And expected.
^^^and as soon as you live with the circumstances of a parent who is dealing with the issues we are debating...I'll stop putting you in time-out.!!!
And just FYI - ya *might* wanna keep the namecalling/flamebaiting to a minimum...that's a great way to get yourself banned...hint hint.
^^^^Ahhh....I see...this is a first...a bully and a tattletail!!....BTW...I think your halo is swinging around your ankle...you might want to take a look at what you have posted..
unreal....but expected... | |
|
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 12:18:09 PM | But in both cases, the martyrdom is fake because it's done by choice.~ zekestone ~
^^^hmmm interesting....so I am a martyr because I am an awesome Mom and don't pilfer my ex ?...yeah...I guess I can live with that title....saint/martyr...I am glad you came around to understand the sacrifices I have made...I'm gonna cry I think..
 ....oohh...nope..false alarm...just got some dust in my eye...
YOU are having your BS challenged and you don't like it one bit and you think you're gonna silence us..~ zekestone ~
^^^ohh no...don't feel that way at all...I get great pleasure from your responses...and arguing with you guys keeps me in form for when my 16 year old act up...it's exhausting being a mother I tell you...
But anyway Lizbeth... whether the monthly about is $1000/month or $1600/month, either way, it just goes to show that $2500/month discussed by OP goes way beyond a child's support needs and shows that the child support system in Canada is a deranged and murky spousal/child support hybrid where there's double dipping going on and not too much accountability... except for the payors... ~ zekestone ~
^^^yeah okay whatever zeke...How 'bout this....If a man makes 15 million dollars a year....he pays whatever the percentage of income the courts have mandated....yes I said mandated...regardless of shared custody. That my friend is called equalization of income...which kinda takes away from the cheese and whine party men have about being the victim of a greedy ex....hold a mirror up to yourself....what do you see?...definately not a saint in that reflection.... turn the mirror even slightly and you'll be able to see kids that are crying and scared and a pissed off (understandably) ex wife in the background that you have every intent of manipulating to keep control....good luck with all of that..
As for my ex husband, I have always maintained some kind of respect for him as my kids worship the ground he walks on..as they should..after all he is their Dad...and they are an extension of him....punish the parent...punish the child...and BTW...I have long since figured out how to navigate the family court system without spending money on a lawyer who gets paid more perpetuating and provoking the issues that are easily mediated with comprimises from both sides.
Misandrist being "one who has contempt for boys/men". ~ zekestone ~
^^geuss I am not a good femi nazi...and I learned something today..yay a new word...only I don't have contempt for boys or men at all...just for the men who behave like boys...Quit complaining and slinging crap at the wall...because it won't stick..
Write your congress man or local polotician...but I would refrain from using the words and phrases that you and "certain" other posters have used to describe the woman who gave you the gift of the children you protest to love so much in your plea for equality...cause it just sounds....well barbaric.. | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 12:46:14 PM |
^^^^Ahhh....I see...this is a first...a bully and a tattletail!!....BTW...I think your halo is swinging around your ankle...you might want to take a look at what you have posted..
unreal....but expected.
*YAWN*
On Topic: WOW did I hit the jackpot...I was out cruising for information and came along this little gem:
Accountability regulations for child support money vary by country and state. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia and custodial parents are trusted to use support payments in the best interest of the child, and thus are not required to provide details on specific purchases. In other jurisdictions, a custodial parent might legally be required to give specific details on how child support money is spent at the request of the court or the non-custodial parent. In the United States, 10 states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington) allow courts to demand an accounting on expenses and spending from custodial parents. Additionally, Alabama courts have authorized such accounting under certain specific circumstances.
Interesting that certain states already HAVE the accountability law in place. Now if we could only get the rest of the states to fall in line, we'd be on to something. I still haven't found any data on the accountability practices in Canada, though I'm inclined to believe that there are few if any. Maybe Canada needs to fall in line with the accountability provisions by those 10 states?
Then I read about this and it caught my attention:
All international and national child support regulations recognize that every parent has an obligation to support his or her child. Therefore, the custodial and non-custodial parents are required to share the responsibility for their child(ren)'s expenses.
Support monies collected are expected to be used for the child's expenses, including food, shelter, clothing and educational needs. They are not meant to function as "spending money" for the child. Courts have held that it is acceptable for child support payments to be used to indirectly benefit the custodial parent. For example, child support monies may be used to heat the child's residence, even if this means that other people also benefit from living in a heated home.
Hmm...interesting that they mention the responsibility should be SHARED when we see so many posts about the radical slants to payments received? So I guess is "certain" people's minds, shared means "totally responsible". Interesting indeed.
And I guess that in those cases where $35,000/mo is awarded, that the CP will justify the personal endowments as "heating related expenses" then? Too funny.
And mad props to the UK where we see this bit of info:
While child support and contact are separate issues, in some jurisdictions, the latter may influence the former. In the United Kingdom, for example, the amount of support ordered may be reduced based on the number of nights per week the child regularly spends at the non-custodial parent's home.
That'd be a sure fire way to reduce a ridiculous amount like $35,000/mo to a more sensible amount. But then again, the UK people don't make a habit of fleecing others to gain personal endowments and ridiculous amounts of CS.
Overall, it looks like it would pay to marry overseas where they have tighter laws and policies against such abuses of the system. Definitely something for men to consider.
(sources referenced were made possible through the interwebs and Wiki) | |
|
| |
| Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 4/5/2009 1:03:17 PM | Could not be arsed reading all this thread.I know it will be full of negative energy and bile.You got to feel sorry for the kids in the middle of this.Looking after kids is exhausting and draining,Its a huge responsibility, that needs both parents fully involved.Divorce means kids lose one fulltime parent and thats a huge emotional loss for them.So much nitpicking and begrudgery, over contributing to a child's welfare.If a parent is drinking/drugging/ gambling the money, then they should not have custody.Otherwise, why get het up , if you pay for heating and the Mom gets warm too.How petty is that.
How many adults can put their own angst aside and put the kids interests first. Those rights are
1.To have enough to eat
2.To have a roof over their head.
3.To be educated
4. To be taught"BY EXAMPLE"HELLO!!! how to behave with honor,unselfishness respect, generosity and love
5.To have equal time with both parents and be encouraged in a relationship with both.Not to have to listen to one parent bad mouthing another.
6.To have emotional needs met as well as material ones.
7Not to have to endure endless Aunties or Uncles sic.You have kids raise them.When their gone date.JWO
8. To be taught morals and standards and be socialized properly.
9 .To be disciplined lovingly and have boundaries.To be filled with confidence and self worth every day.
10. To learn how to appreciate others and have humility and gratitude.
Mostly to be valued and loved , not seen as a nuisance or dent in your bank a/c.
Put the kids welfare first, pay for their up keep willingly and with love- both parents -until they are raised .All pretty time consuming eh and tiring, but worth it.If you dont like it, learn the wisdom of effective contraception. | |
|
|
| Page 31 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 
