| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:00:55 AM | | Do you think its fair for Ex's to get retroactive pay, on maintenance if you better your self in Income , | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:37:49 AM | retroactive pay? as in back child support that was owed?
I dont think anyone should have to "pay back" child support they receive. Its the paying parent's responsibility to pay based on their own income. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 10:59:01 AM | I disagree. I think that if a parent has not been paying support they absolutely should pay back pay. My ex refuses to give me a penny. Says it is his money and I won't see a penny of it. Well my oldest daughter is very very sick. She is in and out of Childrens hospital on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. This has been the pattern for the last 8 years. It makes working very difficult escpecially because she is to sick to go to school so I have to home school her. (ick) Her medication is 300 bucks a month on top of all the other medical and general house bills.
Now I have been trying to take my ex to court for child support but he has managed to put it off for a year in various ways such as not showing up to court then when he does stating he doesn't have a lawyer yet so he is unable to proceed, then using his carreer as an exuce. He is in the military, but does not get deployed often as he is in logistics and only has his QL4's. Now I certanly beleive that I deserve back pay. He has kicked the kids off his medical leaving me strapped. I feel for you dads who are giving it an honest shot and if you pay the support as you should there should be no need for back pay. But in situations were a father or mother is holding back support simply to be vindictive to the other parent they yes absolutly. Why should the kids pay. what have they done to deserve any of this.
Man I could go on about this for a while, LOL, my feelings are so strong on it. LOL but I think I have gotten my point across so I will stop.
Take care | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:02:22 AM | No (referring to the OP), as in if a paying parent had agreed to paying say $500/month in child support based on his or her income at the time of the agreement, but at sometime down the road they get a raise or a better job and their income increases. Then, after a while they're told they have to now pay $700 AND pay the extra $200/month that they hadn't paid since they got their pay raise.
I agree that both parents should equally support their children, no matter if they're living together, separated, or divorced. However, there's always room for exploitation.
The best remedy for any problems that might arise from negotiating with your ex partner over your children is to maintain a good friendship with him or her. But chances are, if they're your ex, you didn't get along for a good while, hence why you split up, so it's never a simple situation. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:03:21 AM | | Oh yeah and I don't concider myself a "Gold-digger" simpy because I want my ex to help support his children. My children are entitled to this. And Concidering that when he kicked us out he didn't let us take ANYTHING not toys not beds nothing, even though all the furnature and stuff belonged to me before I even met him. and I mean everything from the dressers to kitchen table, fridge, stove, washer dryer, couches everything. And he kept it all even the kids toys. So concidering I had to replace it all I think I am being rather cooperative in only asking for basic childsupport , plus that he put the children back on his medical. And help me cover half of my oldest meds. Now if I wanted to be a gold digger I'm sure I could ask for much more. | |
|
| |
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 11:12:49 AM | Usually in seperation agreements there is a paragraph that states that on the anniversary, the couples with notify each other in writing as to thier finances (as it pertains to Child support / Maintenance). If a parent, is active in hiding income, or refuses to divulge this information, and it gets dragged out in court, then yes, the other parent should be awarded.
I guess it should be a question of if they were hiding things. Its very simple to once a year say - hey I made more money, here is the adjustment. Its the same with your income taxes.. they can go back.. why can't this too? | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 4:17:34 PM |
He is in the military, but does not get deployed often as he is in logistics and only has his QL4's.
Then here's a tip for you.
Contact his CO, and see just how bloody quickly he gets a lawyer THEN. | |
|
| |
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 4:29:34 PM | It's none of his CO's business.
Anyways... NO i disagree i don't think they should have to pay back pay. someone could wait 15 years and then say oh you owe me for this and this that is bullshit. I think child support should start as soon as you file for it regardless of how old the child is when you decide to do that. | |
|
| |
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 5:33:13 PM | | This is a tough subject for me because my son is 5 and never new his father, the father choice not mine. But we have to remember whether we receive this money or not it is for the CHILDREN. Yes i know everything is expensive these days and yes the absent parent should support there child(ren) no matter what but so what if they get a raise, and if they go back to school good for them. with in reason of upgrading there childsupport. No matter what they have a right to live a life of happiness also NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT ONES WHO DO THE RIGHT THING AND WANT THERE CHILDREN. those who choose to be a deadbeat and bounce in and out of their lives. well they shoild be hog-tied and horse whipped personally. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 6:02:56 PM | Ok I feel the need to clarify myself here. When I refered to back pay I was not applying it to the getting a raise issue. I was simply refering to a person who has not yet been paying support.
Also regarding waht was mentioned about a parent who has not paid for 5 plus years and then getting the 5 years back paid. Well I am pretty sure that here in B.C. there is a statute of limitation regarding this. I believe there is a two year statute of limitation. And if you do not take the measures to obtain it in those two years you can't after. I'm not totally positive on this but I believe I heard something like that along the lines. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/8/2006 7:51:25 PM |
It's none of his CO's business.
Yes, actually, it is.
He could be charged with "Conduct to the detriment of peace and good order" (I'm not sure the exact charge now - I've been out for years)
He could also be given a dishonerable discharge for being an "administrative burden" | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/9/2006 1:53:07 PM | I have waited for this day to come and I hope that it bites my ex in the ass. He has not increased his support and I have not stirred the pot but have asked politely to have his tax records ( that I am allowed to see if I want to proceed). I hope for retroactive from the day he left and if he has to make installments so that he can still maintain his lifestyle so be it. Maintenance Enforcement should look at all tax returns yearly and if there is a need for increased child support or decreased due to loss of job then rightfully change the court order.
Just a little bitterness in my post........sorry. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 8/9/2006 4:57:31 PM | In my opinion, payments should be made once the court orders the child support payment. If you don't pay, you should be held responsible from the date the court orders the payment plus a penalty.
If the person gets a raise, it should be up to the other parent to petition the court to increase the amount of child support appropriately. Payments should be effective when the court orders the increase. Not from when the person got the raise. | |
|
| |
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 9:31:34 AM | I agree that the parent that is required to pay support - should always pay based on their income. It should be reviewed on a regular basis.
They should NOT have to pay additional old support based on new income. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 10:45:16 AM | BabyDoll... I just had to post this before I finished reading the rest of this thread.
My ex is military too. They FROWN on the non-payment of support of dependants. If you know your ex's unit, contact his CO and let him know that the ex is not paying. There is no excuse for him removing your children from his medical coverage either. Right now I am still covered as we have not filed for divorce, and I am lucky that I get child as well as spousal support.
If the CO gives you a bunch of crap, speak with the base commander and let HIM know what's been going on.
They can garnish his wages if necessary... but you will get your child support, or in the least your children will be reinstated on his medical coverage. If I can help, send me a message thru here... I know people, who know people.. hehehe.. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 5:02:18 PM | CHILD SUPPORT should be re-evaluated on a regular basis, back-pay is iffy at best. In Ontario the FRO (Family Resposibilities Office) is notoriously slow and a pain to deal with, so the paying person should not be penalized for slow government workers. This automatic and regular review process would keep the payments fair and help prevent another point of contention between exes. All better for the kids, (when left to the parents if they don't get along well this process as it is often leave both feeling "screwed" by the other) sincethey won't ever have to overhear one parent complain about their treatment re: child support.
Now if it is SPOUSAL SUPPORT....... get stuffed!!! The ex partner had 5/8ths of f-all to do with person gains after separation, so has no justifiable claim to an increase. Hell spousal support is a joke to start with, I mean can any of the rest of use sue previous employers because they make more money now than they used to and we now feel "under-valued" 
If person A agrees to soley look after a home and children and person B agrees, and there is later a separation the extent of damages to person A is 50% of lost wages for the duration of the agreement (both parties did agree, so BOTH are liable for 1/2 the loss). But person B then should also be able to recoup lost money that could have been invested, like person A's 1/2 of rent, utilities, and supplies. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 5:31:57 PM | | Holly shit! I can't believe that happened to you. Why the hell is going on in this world….? I hope you find a great person to spend your life with…! | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 5:37:31 PM | Here in Canada, the courts just recently ruled that if an NCP makes more money, they have an obilgation to report the new earning to the CP, and have their Child Support adjusted accordingly.
The ruling came out of a case from 4 guys in Alberta that were all in different income brackets. And they were paying the CS ontime, everymonth... Trying to to their best. Well they started to make more money... 1 Guy only went from making 40K-45K a year...
The argument was, are NCP's obilgated to report more earning to their CP. Or should the CP have to make requests through the courts... And once found out. Should the NCP be required to pay the difference for those months.
The Courts ruled that they did. Personally I agree with the decision... However I thing I don't agree with, that seems to not be addressed in alot of places is the idea that an NCP is responsible for payments from the birth of a child... not from the date they find out the child exsists...
If you don't know a child exsists for the first 6 years of it's life.. you should be required to pay CS from then forward... not the previous 6 years.. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 6:08:48 PM | (If you don't know a child exsists for the first 6 years of it's life.. you should be required to pay CS from then forward... not the previous 6 years..)
^^^^^^^^ I agree 100% I also have a problem with people using their childrens support money on themselves. Isn't that neglect?
It amazes me though how our current government seems to target the law abiding morally responsible parent instead of dealing with the true problem of child poverty in Canada and that is the people who don't pay, will never pay and would rather go to jail or leach off society then be an adult, get a job and take care of their s$%*. I think generation X or Y or Z is a huge failure to their children and their future. sorry for the rant | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 6:18:28 PM | Campgurl... please define exactly what child support should go towards. In this house all the money I receive from my ex goes towards my bills, buying food to feed my children, clothing, books, toys (complete luxery I might add!!), and doing any extra curricular activities. There is no distinction between that money and the money I earn working.
I have an annual reassessment set up in my separation agreement. Since my ex makes more then I do, and will probably always make more then I do, he is responsible for paying support. It is all based on income, and right now I am making less then half what he is. So yes, I do feel that if the parent who is paying support begins making more money (and I mean something more then just a one time bonus kind of thing here) that they need to report it and things might need to be adjusted accordingly. Also as in my case, if MY income increases I need to report it since it does affect the balance between the two incomes, and therefore the amount of support he has to pay. It's a complete give and take thing.. if one has to report higher earnings, then the other should as well. | |
|
| New Law passed / gold digging
Posted: 10/4/2006 6:34:06 PM | no 1 bby your definition of where child support should go is a perfect definition.
I am referring to parents who do not use the child support on their child in any way but on themselves to support whatever vice they clutch to as a crutch to avoid the fact that they are supposed to be the example to their children.
Instead they party their life away providing the bare minimum to their children by material means not to mention even less provision of guidance and love. Maybe it's the area I live but there's alot of busy people going nowhere fast and their kids are on the street after dark. I guess I am sentimental for the 70's or even the 80's. Seems life is moving faster or else I am seeing my first glimpse of old. Again my apologies for another rant. | |
|
Home
login 
