| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:02:18 AM | Many ex-step-parents want nothing to do with the kids after a breakup, anyway. Some do... My ex-gf who I was with for 2 years has no desire to keep seeing the kids. My ex-wife's ex, who was with the kids part-time for 6 years or so DOES want to see the kids. *I* have to arrange that, as my ex-wife has the mindset that it's over and done and there's no REASON for the kids to see the ex-step.
*shrug* It's complicated across the board, but it can be made to work, you know? And it can be made to NOT work, too. Some people just aren't capable of being decent, and it's a damn shame. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:34:30 AM | desertrhino,
I'm glad that you're willing to let your kids see their ex-step-father. It's not so much about him getting to see them as giving them the chance to spend time with him. Clearly, in the time he was around they formed an attachment to him. In my opinion, this is good parenting where you do what's best for the kids, even if it might be additional work and/or awkward for you.
I have a friend who has a step-daughter who she adores. My friend was with this girl's father from the time the girl was an infant until the girl was about 10, and also had a daughter with him about 4 years younger than the step-daughter. The daughter calls both her biological mother and her step-mother "Mom" (which caused problems at first). The father is now out of the picture, and my friend has no legal rights to her step-daughter. However, she attends major functions (cheerleading competitions, etc) and gets frequent weekend visitations. Also, despite having minimal spare income, she helps pay for extracurricular activities, etc. for the step-daughter. Just because the relationship with the father ended, that doesn't mean that the relationship with the step-daughter had to end. (Although the risk of that kept her in the marriage for longer than she should have stayed.) | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:55:14 AM | The child support laws are not black and white, there is criteria to be met before a judge can order support. I disagree with the law one of the reason is because I suspect it has more to do with reducing the cost of social assistance programs then child welfare.
I couldn't find the precedent case which might mean this legislation was brought in by the gov't. It would be interesting to see the actually creation of this legislation. Usually there are other factors in laws which don't seem reasonable.
Personally I think some people get into common-law relationships too easily when children are involved. Maybe it's good people think more about it before they live together and invest in someone children or vice versa. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:59:50 AM | attempting to best care for the children.
This is the reason for so many wrongs. It shouldn't be "what is best for the children", but "what is best for the family". To be so obsessed with "the children" as to allow -and sometimes, encourage- abuse towards other members -or potential members- of the family is a recipe for disaster.
My concern with this idea would be that some people might try to distance themselves from their step-children "just in case."
Can you blame them? In fact, isn't that what is happening now, men not only distancing from the possibility of step-children but avoiding their moms altogether, "just in case"?
Remember, you can volunteer to do something, and you'll do it gladly. But if you're compelled to do exactly the same thing, it feels like slavery and you'll fight it to death.
This is another case of shooting their own feet.
I think a step-parent should be allowed to petition for adoption regardless of what the other biological parent does.
I wonder if you would be so eager, if your ex decides that her new husband is a better dad than you and they file for adoption against your wishes.
The problem with your plan is that it's designed to take from the unwilling. Never mind how you put it, the very fact of making support mandatory -and even thinking ways to close loops that may allow them to escape the trap- is unfair, and most men aren't so blind as to fail to see it.
So, in their obsession to find somebody to pay for that child, the only thing they accomplished is to drive off everybody, even those that, in time, might be willing to do it.
Remember the fistful of sand analogy: If you close your fist tighter, more sand will escape between your fingers. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 7:54:30 AM | Malibu Steve:
I am not bashing you as I do understand your position on this issue. As rock hunter stated trying to close some loop holes so someone can not escape paying child support for ex step children will only cause those who might want to get involved to pause even further (or longer) before doing so.
Furthermore I personally do not see that a step parent being able to adopt a child against the biological parents wishes if the biological parent is in the picture.
I also understand that your suggestion of ex step parents paying child support for ex step children is based on a a utopia. Unfortunately we have some less than moral people in this world who are more like "snakes in the grass" than human.
A general post:
Simmah said such a law like this would not exist in her state....is that not the point of this thread? If step parents have to pay or should they want to pay child support? So what if this were a law everywhere. If parnts were to meet someone with 2 more children then they had would it not make them consider the possible issues down the road and what it might do to your own children's financial well being if the relationship did not work out? Malibu Steve you have already answered this but I am interested in finding out how others think on this issue. Some parents think this idea of having step parents pay child support is great but when you put them on the other side as the one having to pay the support for ex step chilren I wonder how they feel?
What if there are 3 ex step parents? (I have seen such a scenario) wuold visitation schedules cut into non custodial parents visitation time? The child coud be in a different home every weekend. Plus where dp we draw the line for all of this? If we simply say anyone who acted as a parental figure for the child has to pay provided that they married the child's parent or lived common-law for the allotted amount of time under the law this is where gold digging comes into the picture. What happens under Malibu Steve's suggestion that a child has multiple step parents can all adopt the child?
I am not certain which poster said it but they mentioned that their ex believes that because the marriage is over with the child's ex step parent the children should not see the ex step parent or something to the effect of the ex sees no responsiblity to help the children and ex step parent see each other.
There are many posts in other threads where custodial parents say court orders and forced visitation do not allow for the child to play sports on weekends or attend birthday parties and other events and this is not in the best interests of the child as the child should be free to choose. It does get complicated as myself and a few others have said.
Hiding behind "The best interests of the child" may be the "en vogue thing to do" however what happens when te house of cards comes tumbling down and people look at things strictly from a financial perspective and decide not to get seriously involved with single parents as early in the dating process they may not be attached yet. Who then who would the courts get to pay child support? As beavenhouse said this appears to be a way for governments to save money which is why we have not seen changes or modifications to such laws. | |
|
| |
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:19:45 AM |
The child support laws are not black and white, there is criteria to be met before a judge can order support.
I think this is a major problem.
If the law isn't "black and white" then people don't know where they stand at any point, it's at the discretion of a single judge.
When people can't assess the risk of doing something, they typically avoid the activity in question altogether.
Laws like this, particularly adding in the ambiguity involved, make single parents virtually undesirable for short term partners. In the big picture, you can't be a "long term partner" until you've been a "short term partner" first.
I guess for those with no assets and nothing to lose, it's not as big of a deal. You can't draw blood from a stone. But at this point in my life I own a house and have my own car and my own investments and my own business. I should lose half or even more of all that I worked for because I dated someone with kids, even for a short while, and it didn't work out? | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:24:35 AM | | There is another issue is that in some cases the parent and child can take half of what the step parent had before they met. So Iguess your thought Malibu about should you not care and provide for the child even if the child was with the parent prior to the marriage can be true because it can work in reverse as well. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:37:31 AM |
There is another issue is that in some cases the parent and child can take half of what the step parent had before they met.
I guess then, that nobody in their right mind should take things beyond casual dating ... children involved or not, because that can happen in any common-law, cohabitation type relationship.
Oh wait! It's only the single moms that would do that because every single person who is NOT a parent would NEVER do that, right?  | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:39:31 AM | | I'm all confused here!! Too many step -parents here. Does this actually happen for real?? I hope not, poor kids. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 8:50:24 AM |
I guess for those with no assets and nothing to lose, it's not as big of a deal.
You're right, but not in the way you think: someone with no assets and nothing to lose DOESN'T have to worry about it, because he or she will never get a date ANYWAY.
Arlo  | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:24:30 AM | I guess then, that nobody in their right mind should take things beyond casual dating ... children involved or not, because that can happen in any common-law, cohabitation type relationship.
Oh wait! It's only the single moms that would do that because every single person who is NOT a parent would NEVER do that, right?
Since right now women -not only single moms- are having troubles in making men go beyond the "casual date" thing, looks like they're one step ahead of you.
I guess for those with no assets and nothing to lose, it's not as big of a deal. You can't draw blood from a stone.
Of course not. But you can label the stone a "deadbeat", send it to jail, remove its driver's license, plaster its portrait all over the place with a "deadbeat" sign, etc. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:30:31 AM |
Since right now women -not only single moms- are having troubles in making men go beyond the "casual date" thing, looks like they're one step ahead of you.
I'm not sure I'm liking what you're trying to insinuate, but that's neither here nor there...
What I was TRYING to point out, was that his argument really has nothing to do with children, single parents, child support... any of the above, as it could just as easily happen whether or not children/step parents are involved. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:35:21 AM | I'm not sure I'm liking what you're trying to insinuate, but that's neither here nor there...
What I was TRYING to point out, was that his argument really has nothing to do with children, single parents, child support... any of the above, as it could just as easily happen whether or not children/step parents are involved.
And that's what I was saying (not "insinuating" anything). Since right now to cohabitate with a woman, whether she has children or not is becoming not only risky but outright dangerous, more and more men for some time now are already aware of what you just wrote (that's why I said "one step ahead of you"), and already refraining from doing so.
The difference between cohabitating with a childless woman and with a single mom is that in the latter you may be hit twice. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:44:44 AM | I guess that all goes with the stereotype that men have everything and women just 'receive' because of the men.
When my ex and I moved in together, I had a home full of furniture, appliances, you name it. He had a bed and stereo... oh, and a desk. I was 23 and a single mom, he was 29 and a single guy with a successful business. I knew how to manage money... he didn't, hence the difference.
Point being, it's risky for either sex to cohabitate. People really need to take a good look at the person with whom they have a relationship with before taking that step. True, I suppose generally speaking, it's the male coming into the relationship with 'more', but that's not always the case.
This is a totally different topic from the original... sorry to other posters for wandering off in this thread... I was just pointing out a ridiculous point made by Johne... he tried to pin it on single moms and that it was a problem with cohabitating with them because you could lose half of everything, when in reality, that's just a risk you take when moving in with your partner... male OR female. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:00:15 AM |
Point being, it's risky for either sex to cohabitate.
It's risky for the person with the greater earning power and the majority of the assets to cohabitate.
But you seem to ignore some basic realities of modern dating.
1) Most women tend not to date men who earn less than them. Some do, but I would say that's more of an exception rather than the rule. Or the woman gradually increased her earning power to surpass her partners while in a long term relationship. The more attractive the woman, the less likely her partner is going to earn less than her.
2) Most women still tend to get custody of children in a divorce. This is changing more now than ever but there are simply more women out there as single parents with primary custody than men.
Yes, a woman could get financially destroyed if she met a single father with primary custody and she made much more money than him and got into a relationship with him. But let's be real, most women are only going to do that if they are unattractive to most men. An attractive childless woman has many many dating options and she's likely to pick a guy who makes less with kids?
How often is that combination going to happen? | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:29:19 AM | | The problem is if you get involved with someone without children yu can get a prenup saying what's mine is mine bnot yours and what is yours is yours and not mine. The child suport act clearly states that no prenup agreement can contrain a clause waiving child suport it would not stand up in court so yes that is an issue for people who date single parents as you have a consideration you do not have with someone who does not have children. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 12:08:16 PM | Aaaand this makes me glad I live in US, where step parents are under no obligation to pay child support
(Chants USA)
Ahem back to being serious for a minute here... The real problem with sometimes requiring child support from step parents and cohabitators and sometimes not is not the law per se, but the ambiguity of the situation required for support to attach. If the rule is clear - i.e. if you live together for more than 6 months, support will be required, then people will simply maintain separate residences until they're sure they're really "in" the relationship for good.
As it is, there's too much of a blurry line for people to make rational decisions, and I think that people with assets will be much leerier than they would be otherwise of getting into relationships with children involved. Ah the joys of externalities. I think the law needs a  | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 3:37:49 PM | This article states the bulk of the situation in Canada....
When one relationship breaks down, many people move on to new relationships. Sociologists call this serial family formation. What happens to the children of these serial relationships? Who should be financially responsible for them?
The law makes biological parents financially responsible for their children, whether they see them or not. However, when new families include step-parents, the situation is not so straightforward. Provincial law determines the financial obligations of step-parents in common-law relationships. These obligations vary considerably from province to province. In British Columbia, unmarried step-parents are financially responsible for their step-children if they contributed to the children's support for at least one year. Next door in Alberta, unmarried step-parents have no financial obligations to their step-children.
When spouses are legally married, the governing law is the Divorce Act. It says that persons who stand in the place of a parent are responsible for their step-children's support, and the Federal Child Support Guidelines apply. This leaves two issues -- what does stand in the place of a parent mean? How much and for how long should such a person pay child support?
The Threshold Test
When you marry someone who has children, you automatically become a step-parent to those children, but you do not automatically stand in the place of a parent for them. This requires something more than simply being married to the child's parent. You must have crossed a threshold and acted in a way that showed you intended to be like a parent to that child. A judge looks at many factors to see if you have crossed that threshold. The judge will consider the following:
* Whether you provide financially for the child
* Whether you discipline the child as a parent would
* Whether you hold yourself out to the child and to the public that you are responsible as a parent to that child
* Whether the child still has a relationship with her absent biological parent
* Whether you and your spouse have had your own child, creating a blended stepfamily
* Whether your step-child participates in your family the same way as your biological child does (or would, if you had one)
* Whether the step-child uses your surname
* Whether you have ever considered adopting the child
* Whether the step-child calls you Dad or Mom
* Whether you have a good or a poor relationship with your step-child, and how long it lasted
* Whether you ever took any steps to exclude the biological parent from the child's life and showed you intended to replace that parent
* How old the child is, and if she ever knew her absent biological parent
Every family is different The judge reviews the facts in each individual case to see if you have passed the threshold test in your family.
How much and how long?
If you stand in the place of a parent, the starting point for the amount of child support is the same as for your own biological child. You pay a table amount based on your income, and a section 7 amount based on the child's special expenses and your spouse's income. But Section 5 of the Guidelines does give a judge the authority to vary those amounts, having regard to these Guidelines and any other parent's legal duty to support the child. Beyond this, nothing in the legislation tells the judge how to exercise this authority. The judge can do two things -- change the amount that you have to pay, or how long you have to pay it.
In deciding how much you should pay, the judge might again consider all the circumstances listed above. Sometimes, the most important factor is whether or not the biological parent also pays support. Remember, a biological parent's obligation to pay child support is unconditional. The existence of a step-parent who might also have to pay child support is irrelevant to the biological parent. He or she is responsible for paying the full amount at all times.
The step-parent's obligation is secondary to a biological parent's obligation. So, if the biological parent also pays, some judges might allow you a reduction, but not always. For example, in a blended step-family where your biological child still lives with your stepchild, some judges find it unfair to treat one child differently from another. That judge might order you to pay the full amount for both children, even if a biological parent also pays support. On the other hand, if the biological parent pays nothing (particularly if this situation existed with your approval), then you must usually pay the full amount. Other factors a judge might consider include the following:
* if you have a limited income
* if you have obligations to numerous children of your own
* if your ex-spouse is in a new relationship
The final issue the judge must decide is how long the child support should last. Biological parents must support their children to age 18 (19 in British Columbia) or longer if the child remains in school. But if you've stood in the place of a parent for five years, and your step-child is 10 years old when your marriage ends, should you have to pay support for the next eight years? Again, a judge may shorten this period. Here, the important factors are how long you stood in the place of a parent for the child, and the quality of that relationship.
You cannot avoid paying child support by cutting off your contact with your step-child. In a case called Chartier v. Chartier, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly said that the relevant time to assess the quality of the parent-child relationship is before the separation. Nothing you do after the separation will change it. On the other hand, if the step-child ends the relationship with you, a judge can say that you don't have to pay for a step-child who won't see you. The same is true if your ex-spouse refuses to let you see your step-child. Generally, she cannot both claim child support from you and deny you access. (Contrast this with the biological parent who always has an obligation to pay, whether there is access or not.)
It is not surprising that judges go off in all directions. The Divorce Act and the Guidelines give them little guidance. The judge's job is even more difficult when the spouses move on into third or even fourth relationships. The Supreme Court of Canada can set policy standards for judges, but it takes years for appropriate cases to wind their way thorough the system. Canadian step-parents should not have to wait to have their financial obligations clarified. This issue deserves immediate legislative reform.
COPYRIGHT 2002 University of Alberta, Legal Resource Centre
| |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:14:25 PM | Well that is interesting. Thank you for sharing that, m church.
Kind of shows all those arguments in different light, doesn't it?
| |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:53:07 PM | How so? That only means that everything is left upto the discretion of a single judge.
Look at the case law and you will shake your head at the sheer idiocy of many cases. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 5:56:09 PM | | How so? Well for one thing, it is not a law in every province. For another thing, there are many many factors that come into play, including the relationship with the bio parent and if you have children as a result of this relationship. Some of the people in Canada have been making this sound like it is black and white, across the board, but this article shows a lot of things that can make that both different than we've been led to believe, and also not always as bad. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:20:21 PM | SimmahDahnNah:
So would you risk it if you met a man with 4 children? There are some people collecting child support from 3 diffeant people for one child. | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:33:07 PM | | The woman I'm seeing now is aware I have kids, and well aware I'd never, ever, in a billion years, tag her for child support. She also hasn't MET the kids. *shrug* | |
|
| Child support by step-parents
Posted: 5/14/2008 6:36:59 PM |
So would you risk it if you met a man with 4 children? There are some people collecting child support from 3 diffeant people for one child.
You know, I honestly can't say if I'd "risk it" or not. I don't think I'd run as far as I could like my hair was on fire. I would probably try to get to know him. If the relationship progressed, yes it would be an issue that I'd take into account. But that's just me. | |
|
Home
login 
