Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 215
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!Page 4 of 33    (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, 33)
Lizbeth,
Quite correct there can't be two laws... and there isn't. The OP's friend was thinking $2500/month would be enough for two children, current guidelines is $3700/month - so he would have to pay an additional $1200/month. That's pretty cut and dried.

Agree with you about the issue of capping... Canada does not have two sets of laws: one for the wealthy and another for average joes. And I agree with you that extra expenses have always been above and beyond the set guideline amounts and payment is on a pro-rata based on both spouses incomes.

But I fail to see how you are equating these possible children as being born with silver spoons and reduced to plastic forks. Although a delightful, if inflammatory, turn-of-phrase, this isn't logical for at least two reasons: 1. his fiance is a doctor who will earn fairly decent coin in her own right and 2. any pre-nup that is outside the guideline amount can and will be immediately turned over by the courts if she disputes it. They can make whatever plans and agreements they want to in advance... but it won't hold together in the court if one of them changes their mind about it later. The laws are very clear that you cannot bargain away your child's rights.
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 216
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 7:13:23 AM
In my view CAPPING does not create 2 sets of laws. Its still a single law. CAPPING means the government should pre-determine (as it has in setting min. CS), the maximum reasonable amount of money required for ANY child's needs. EVERYONE pays the set % or the max whichever is lower. I recently learned the federal government is studying the feasibility of introducing a cap in CS payments in line with the EU laws.

You cannot possibly justify a CS payment of $5000/mth for a normal child as reasonable. Lets forget about how much the NCP makes. If a CP was to be making $500,000, the government cannot force/legislate that they spend $5000/month on the kids. Why then do we think its right to force the NCP to spend thus on the kids when we all know very well that such an amount is way over the top. Moreover the NCP has no recourse to demanding the said amount paid be spent as she/he deems fit.

The interesting thing here is that we are assuming the NCP pays only 10% or so of his/her salary. Not true. Its usually more like 20%+ because the % is based on his GROSS. Take $100K/yr. Your CS for 2 kids is $1400/month. Ontario Prov taxes for $100K is approx $12K if not more. Add another $22K for Fed taxes, EI, & CPP. So now he is paying about $17K out of $66K and thats over 25%...and that is assuming he doesnt spend ANY OTHER MONEY on the kids, which we all agree is not possible.

If we are against 2 sets of laws for the wealthy and average Joes, why do we encourage that for kids....that some gets $5000/mth and others $500/mth? To avoid that scenario, then a CAP should be set. If CS is not enough, the CP can apply for the necessary supplement CCTB, FS, etc to reach that amount. Most do get these benefits anyway.
 Deuce1231
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 218
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 7:42:57 AM
Well, OP, I'm an attorneuy in Illinois. This is not legal advice by any stretch, but in this state, the statutory minimum child supoprt payment for two children is 28% of the non-custodial parent's net monthly income.

If your frined lived in Illinois and makes $3,000.00 a year, 28% of his GROSS monthly income is $7,000.00. I don't know what his net income is, but $2,500.00 woud certainly NOT cover child support for two children in Illinios with that kind of income.

Your friend sounds like a rich cheapskate if he wants to cheat his UNBORN children of their rightful support. He probably shouldn't have children and moreover, any provision of an antenuptial agreement attempting to limit future child support is likely to be deemed void, as the amoutn can fluctuate based upon changes in income. He probably shouldn't even get married if he's that worried about supporting his kids even before they're born, yet he makes a ton of money. And lastly, the woman in this situation must be a gold digger.

On second thought, maybe they'll make a couple of lawyers rich someday....
 Deuce1231
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 219
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 7:44:02 AM
Pardon the typos....

$3000,000.00 per year, not $3,000.00
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 220
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 7:50:40 AM
Starfun... I have missed this, but where in the world did the figure of $5000/month come from?
A cs of $5000/month would mean the parent is earning about $650,000 per year in Ontario.

Edit to add: where cs is currently "unfair" is more at the middle and lower end of the scale... as the minimum cs is a greater percentage of income, some of the average joes face more of a burden to pay cs and also live than those at the higher end of the scale.
 Deuce1231
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 223
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/25/2008 2:34:18 PM

As far as legal rights go, those children would be getting $84,000 a year in support. How is that "rightful" support to a child? It isn't like they'd That's enough to modestly support an entire family, nevermind two children.

Looking back at my childhood, I was fairly well-off (well fed, well clothed, lots of toys and other crap for entertainment, big home, good school, etc...) I really doubt my parents ever spent more than $750-1500 a month on me to support that sort of lifestyle, and that would fall between 5-10% of their combined income.


You missed the point entirely.

The stautory minimum inIllinois for child support for two minor children is 28% of the net income of the person ordered to pay child support. End of discussion. There is no "wiggle room" on this. The more someone makes, the more he/she has to pay based on the guidelines. In the county where I practice most, the "exceptions" to this rule are all but thrown out the window, in practical sense, there are no exceptions to the minimums.

If you don't believe it, look at the statute. Just plug 750 ILCS 5/505 into Google.

And how is it rightful? It's rightful in the sense that some other perosn who makes $50,000.00 a year would pay 28% of HIS/HER net income ($14,000.00 gross) just like the perosn who makes $300,000.00 a year muct pay 28% of his/her net income($84,000.00 gross).

But remember, the amount is based on NET income, not GROSS....

Still, it applies to everyone equally. That's how it's rightful. Aruge with the legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court if you don't like it. Or don't live in Illinois, then it won't apply to you. But all states have similar schemes for child support.
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 228
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 1:02:41 AM

....you can't be serious...are NCP's held to the same tax rate on their income as every other canadian...
You are quite good at twisting issues here. Im sorry if you didnt understand my post. Or maybe I didnt make myself clear enough!!! Nowhere did I say NCP's shouldn't pay taxes as every other Canadian. My beef was trying to explain that CS on GROSS is unfair and doesnt make you see the true % of his income you are taking.


....after reading your post it sounds like a NCP's child(ren) should expect their child support to have E.I and CPP deductions...
Of course the CS has EI and CPP already deducted except that it is borne by the NCP not the CP even though it is in effect an income for the CP. If you hold the notion that the CS is for the kids hence not an income for the CP, then the same should apply to the NCP and every other Canadian that have kids.

The CS calculations based on GROSS INCOME instead of NET is so unfair. For e.g.
When one does O/T at work, the taxes on that are higher than normal. At the end of the year, the CS payments are still based on the GROSS (now inflated by the O/T)disregarding the fact that the person's tax obligations (due to the O/T) has increased dramatically. If CS is based on NET, then it will reflect the true increase of the person's income (take-home pay).



And how is it rightful? It's rightful in the sense that some other perosn who makes $50,000.00 a year would pay 28% of HIS/HER net income ($14,000.00 gross) just like the perosn who makes $300,000.00 a year muct pay 28% of his/her net income($84,000.00 gross).
But remember, the amount is based on NET income, not GROSS....

Liz, I know you may never agree with me on this issue but at least, I know deep down you can see the madness in these laws. As per quote above, does it make sense to say one needs to spend $84K/yr on 2kids? Are the kids who are living on $14K/yr any less human than the former? IF the NCP were to lose his job or dies, does it mean these $84K/yr kids cant go on? Or will the govt step in to make up the shortfall?

I strongly feel there should be a CAP and the calculation based on NET and the CP should pay for the necessary tax on the monies received.
 Deuce1231
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 229
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 7:59:36 PM

IF the NCP were to lose his job or dies, does it mean these $84K/yr kids cant go on? Or will the govt step in to make up the shortfall?



Most judgments for child support require the non-custodial parent to obtain a life insurance policy to secure child support in the event of death. Losing the job means a material change in circumstances which leads to a reduction in child support payments.

A cap on child support will do no good. I'm not sure what it's like in Canada, but in the USA, it would likely be deemed unconstitutional for a state to set up a cap scheme. It would create a suspect classification of citizenry which cannot survive constitutional muster, which is a married person who decides to have a child or children and then has the ability to not pay the same percentage of his/her income toward his/her children for getting divorced. The cap will likely be less than the percentage the legislature adopted for the wealthier persons and would stick the low and middle class in the breadbasket. Besides, I've heard the debate hundreds of times from my own clients, even those who aren't extremely wealthy at all. It's never going to happen. The legislature has defined what is acceptable for child support based upon number of children, indicating what would have likely been spent on the kids had the couple stayed married. For one child, that percentage is 20% of the gross income, for two, it's 28%. Up to 6 and more children, it's 50%!! The "sense" in my example of spending $84,000.00 a year on 2 children (and that example uses GROSS, not NET because the OP only gave what appeared to be a GROSS income figure) is the very essence of the statute -- equal treatment under the law. Do you think the legislature pulled an arbitrary number out of the clear blue sky for this? The cap you propose would require such an arbitrary figure and that would likely result in being deemed an unconstitutional act.
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 230
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/26/2008 10:33:51 PM
The fact that a material change results in CS been changed tells us that the formula for CS is not to take care of the children per se but as a means of "sticking it" to the payer.

The cap will likely be less than the percentage the legislature adopted for the wealthier persons and would stick the low and middle class in the breadbasket.
If CS is to provide for the kid(s) then surely there should be a limit . There is only so much a child can consume per month, or clothes, or after school extras, or toys!!! CS is nothing to do with providing for the child!!! Its purely a sort of "Robin Hood" act!!

Constituitional? The fact that various states set different % for CS tells us that there is nothing "constituitional" about the way they are set. Besides judges have always changed this % based on their discretion!

Do you think the legislature pulled an arbitrary number out of the clear blue sky for this?
Of course!!! Where did they come up with the idea that a % of a NCP income is adequate. A child needs shouldnt be based on the NCP's income. It should be "a figure pulled out of the sky" - just like the CS % and should be applicable for all kids!! CAP, etc etc. Check out the CS support guidelines for most of the European countries and you will realise that we in North America are just lost..!
In UK for eg. If you make less, you pay a lesser %, if more a high % but up to a CAP! Whats wrong with that?
This thread has been a big eye-opener for me and I thank the OP for it.
 Deuce1231
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 232
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/27/2008 7:17:43 AM

Constituitional? The fact that various states set different % for CS tells us that there is nothing "constituitional" about the way they are set.Besides judges have always changed this % based on their discretion!


Respectfully, that is BULL$HIT.

It's painfully obvious you:

a. Have no children.

b. Are not an attorney (or barrister as you Canadians call them). You may be a first year law student but I doubt that.

c. Have no legal support for your position.

Being you're from Canada, and assuming you're not originally from the US, I don't expect you to know a damn thing about the US Constitution, and your quoted comment just confirmed my suspicion. First and foremost, the setting of statutory child support guidelines is a state matter, not one for the Federal government. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution secures the rights for the states to govern any matter not specifically delegated to the United States within the Constitution. Even so, the Fourteenth Amendment later broadened the concept of Due Process to indicate that, while a State can certainly pass its own laws on state issues, it cannot treat its citizens in a manner which violates Due Process. Creating a suspect classification of citizenry, as you indicate is the answer to the problem by instituting a cap on child support, violates Due Process. Pure and simple. It violates Due Process by allowing the wealthy to pay less on a percentage basis than another individual who is less wealthy would have to pay as and for child support. That's a suspect classification, and by analogy it smacks of "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" Jim Crow laws which were racially motivated and deemed to violate Due Process.

But in a larger sense, it also violates the due process of the minor children because THE CHILDREN, who have no say in the amtter at all, certainly didn't ask for their stubborn, greedy, ignorant, idiotic, selfish parents to decide THEY didn't want to be married any longer. You miss the entire point completely when you fail to realize none of this even matters if the persons involved remained married. I understand the guidelines will also apply to unmarried couples who have children but most of the time you DON'T find anyone caring too much if an unwed person pays for his/her children, it's usually looked upon as doing the right thing, but it's not the focal point of this argument.

In no state can a trial judge, when applying a statutory guideline for minimum child support, arbitrarily deviate from the percentage to be less than the minimum without the most compelling of reasons. Discretion, as you define discretion, is not even in the equation. In Lake County, Illinois, the judges' deviation from the guidelines is always to INCREASE the amount, not decrease it, with compelling evidence the needs of the child(ren) requuire more to be sufficiently met.


A child needs shouldnt be based on the NCP's income.


And how do you think the children's needs are met when the parents DO NOT GET DIVORCED??? Let me take a stab at guessing it has at least something to do with the income of their parents.


In UK for eg. If you make less, you pay a lesser %, if more a high % but up to a CAP!


Do yourself and all of us a favor and read the statute before you comment any further on this issue with regard to my practice. 750 ILCS 5/505 Plug it into Google or Yahoo and you'll get the statute. You throw out tons of references with no way to verify them. Illinois law is right there. Go look at it. And provide some sort of reference material for yourself if you choose to continue spouting off about laws of this country or that.


This thread has been a big eye-opener for me and I thank the OP for it.


An eye opener or a chance to engage in mental masturbation? You missed the entire point of the OP. He wanted to know if his friend could cap his child support payments in an antenuptial agreement. The simple answer is no. His income can likely drastically change which would entitle his child(ren) to more support. That would violate the Due Process of the child(ren), and any court in the US would strike that provision of an antenuptial agreement for such reason.

Seems like you took the thread and made it your own to shine a spotlight on your inadequate legal arguments in an attempt to sound as if you really know what you are talking about. I'm certainly not taking personal aim at you by saying that, and please understand, I find your point of view is eloquently stated and vigorously defended, if lacking in support. But if you choose to continue this debate, have some firepower in your arsenal and show us all the "law" as you claim it to be, in whatever jurisdiction you choose to use as an example. I only use Illinois and, generally, the United States, because this is where I live and practice. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the UK or Canada's laws on this, or most any other, issue. They do not apply to me or my practice.
 Deuce1231
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 233
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/27/2008 8:48:38 AM

In the states this is what we face with dead beat dad's


For the record, there are deadbeat mothers as well as deadbeat fathers. Deadbeat parents exist. It's gender neutral. The soundbyte of "deadbeat dad" just seems to sound better.

A deadbeat parent can even have custody of the child(ren). There are some married couples I'd identify as deadbeats due to the basic lack of care and/or understanding encessary to rear children, not just financially, but emotinoally and psychologically, as well.

The bottom line, to me, is some people should never get married, or at least not to one another. And of those who do, some should never have children. At least not together, if at all. And if not married, they never should have had sex to begin with!

OK, rant over....
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 236
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/30/2008 5:38:49 AM

....The calculation is NOT based on GROSS income....unless the NCP's support order is before 1993...
I just checked again and it is based on "Total Income" aka GROSS! Read the Federal child support Guidlines again - http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html
Read Section 15 thro 20! The whole thing is so unfair.

NCP has the ability to deduct any child support paid to the CP, and the CP in the similiar circumstance, who is recieving support based on GROSS income, is required to claim that support as income.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/acsi/about.html
Again, its not true. The NCP cannot deduct that at tax time and the CP is not required to report that as income. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html Read Schedule III - Adjustment to Income!

For some reason, you seem to think that the NCP's are the only victims in this debate about child support and the amount that is fair....but fair to whom?...you are only wanting to see one side of the arguement!
Its definitely unfair to the NCP. The child support guidlines is written such that it maximizes the hardship to most NCP. Even if the NCP happens to be living in a country where income tax is lower, or the standard of living is lower, or income is lower, the court will then have to impute income. Read section 19.1 (b),(c). This sounds like a making a second set of rules for people who are not HIT hard enough with the normal set of rules. Im sorry if I sound one-sided but I honestly think the current guidlines are not fair. If the using the current set of guidlines favour the NCP, then a new set of rules are applied. That smacks of unfairness!!!

if a NCP is making the kind of income where they are forced into paying $5000.00 that is in line with the tabled guideline amount of the government, then I fail to see how much of a burden that would be to their lifestlye
Its not so much of a question of lifestyle changes. The truth is regardless of how much money you make (say $1million/yr), there is only so much per month that you can spend on the kids. Make another $10m/yr and this amount does not increase. There's only so much school, extra-curriculum activities, food, clothes etc a child will need per month. Hence my insistance on a cap. Sorry if I sound one-sided.
A fairer way (in my opinion) is the one in say UK.
http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/setup/how-maintenance-calculated.asp
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 237
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 1/30/2008 5:51:05 AM
Deuce1231

Do yourself and all of us a favor and read the statute before you comment any further on this issue with regard to my practice. 750 ILCS 5/505 Plug it into Google or Yahoo and you'll get the statute. You throw out tons of references with no way to verify them. Illinois law is right there. Go look at it. And provide some sort of reference material for yourself if you choose to continue spouting off about laws of this country or that.
Well, I didnt quote specific statutes here because I erroneously thought that as an attorney, you will have no problem searching on google (as you implied people to) a simple phrase as "UK child support Guidlines"! In any case, here is the link -
http://www.csa.gov.uk/en/setup/how-maintenance-calculated.asp
So you see it is not a blind calculation as that of North America. 4 sets of calculations!
Nowhere in my post did I refer to your practise. No where did I belittle you or said anything immature about you! This is a forum for voicing opinions and not for insults. I could have chosen to respond to all the silly remarks you made about me but I have decided not to stoop that low.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about the UK or Canada's laws on this, or most any other, issue. They do not apply to me or my practice.
Participation in this thread and forum in general is voluntary hence yours is not required or mandated. No one is asking you to care about laws of UK or Canada!

I'm certainly not taking personal aim at you ......
Same here!! I even apologise in advance if you feel offended.
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 239
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 3:19:49 AM
Thanks Liz. The only deductions the government allows is for people who are self-employed.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/ligfed.html SCHEDULE III (16) already provide a list for deductions that can be made...so there is no need for sticking it out to all those who are not self-emplyed. So in essence, your GROSS without deducting a cent is what is used.

On average most NCP's only pay about 20% of their income for two kids..........so what's the argument about?.

.......but shouldn't the same be said for NCP's?....How much money is enough to provide for their own needs? (meaning NCP's)....
I recently read of a case here in Ontario where the NCP makes $870K and the CP $900K. Well, the NCP is complaining that by being forced to pay 20% of his income to the kids, the CP is having a free ride. With extra expenses he is paying close to $200k/yr for 2 kids. That is surely enough to take care of these kids without the CP contributing a cent. Where is the fairness in this!! Lets not assume that the CP ALWAYS makes less than the NCP.
 starfun77
Joined: 11/3/2007
Msg: 241
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:18:53 AM
Maybe I should repeat myself too...I AM NOT AGAINST THE NCP PAYING CS. My beef all along is the fairness and the real motive behind the rules. Nothing else!! If the reason behind it was for the sake of the kids, surely there should be some sense of fairness. Thats my beef!!! Nowhere have I said the NCP shouldnt pay CS.
 cmdr_iceman
Joined: 5/30/2007
Msg: 244
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/1/2008 4:43:56 AM
This folks is one of the primary reasons why I havent had any children as of yet and probably never will. It is too easy today for a woman to reduce a man who is enthusiatic about being a father toward his offspring to nothing more than a human wallet because of the biased family courts.
 tick tock
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 249
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/2/2008 5:34:04 PM
^ In the end, it is always reduced to dollar signs. By the way, the amount of $2,500/month for two children is an overpayment in my opinion. There are a lot of adults who would love to make that much.
 lukas_424_23
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 250
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/2/2008 5:40:23 PM
lmfao.....funny how the men say 1 thing and MOST of the ladies say something else. i happend to b canadian and pay child support .....for the most part it isnt CHILD support its HER support or better knowen as a free ride. lets jus sit back a min and figer out how much it cost to raise a child? or better yet half a child cuz ya theres 2 of us. i would think the courts SHOULD uphold this agreement .....no diff having to pay $1000 a month by law but she says NO i think $800 a month is good?maybe he should just not have kids with her ? go get fixed but dont tell her .......ha ha jokes on her ............lmfao have a great day all........
 tick tock
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 251
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/2/2008 5:44:48 PM
One of my partners makes around $100,000/year. After about 20 years of marriage, he found out that his partner was cheating on him. Anyway, she is now suing him for $1,500/month in child support and also suing him for spousal support. The thing that really bothers him is that he knows (and so does she) that it only cost them around $600 - $800/month to raise their children, so as is quite common, that extra is just gravy for her gin and tonics, salon trips and manicures.
 DeZwarteMaan71
Joined: 1/2/2008
Msg: 254
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/12/2008 6:21:57 PM
Actually, He should put it in the Prenups that if she decides to leave him before 10 years, then she leaves with "Secondary joint custody". Meaning that he gets to keep the kids on primary custodial access and she gets secondary and he can decide where they will live and then not have to pay child support to her.


This is about the full of what could happen, if he believes that she's just in it for the free ticket. Put a 10 year clause in that and after 10 years,.. retire. heh :)

If you leave the relationship and there was no 'just' cause like infidelity, abuse or some whackjob thing (S)he did. Then the person leaving should relenquish primary custody. It's their fault that the relationship is falling apart. I'm also a fan that the one making more money should support the one making less.

Guy makes 45K roughly 35K after Tax. 28K after child support
Woman makes 65K. roughly 45K after tax. 52K after support

After 20% (In Texas), the guy would live on 28K?!?!? Not very likely. The Child support laws were made to help a lower incomed wife support herself when the husband left her with nothing.

Reverse child custody on same pay.
Woman makes 65K, 45K after tax, 36K after child support
Guy gets child. Makes 45K, 35K after tax, and 44K after support

Which is more fair to the couple and the child in whole?

The person making more money should be given the burdon of the support, or the child support should be balanced to even out their pays equally.
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 255
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/13/2008 12:21:11 AM

Actually, He should put it in the Prenups that if she decides to leave him before 10 years, then she leaves with "Secondary joint custody". Meaning that he gets to keep the kids on primary custodial access and she gets secondary and he can decide where they will live and then not have to pay child support to her.

Not aware of Texas laws at all, but in Canada this wouldn't be allowed in a pre-nup... can't predetermine custody OR support. For the simple fact that you can't contract into the future what the "best interest of the child" will be.

If you leave the relationship and there was no 'just' cause like infidelity, abuse or some whackjob thing (S)he did. Then the person leaving should relenquish primary custody. It's their fault that the relationship is falling apart.

Canada is "no fault". The reason for the marriage (or co-hab) break down has no bearing on who gets custody. Similarly, support (child and spousal) is based on need, not fault.

I'm also a fan that the one making more money should support the one making less.

That's how it works in Canada. Which is why I had to pay my co-hab SO spousal support - even though HIS affair ended our relationship. LOL
 tick tock
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 256
view profile
History
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/14/2008 1:03:20 AM

Canada is "no fault". The reason for the marriage (or co-hab) break down has no bearing on who gets custody. Similarly, support (child and spousal) is based on need, not fault.

Yes, unfortunately.
 simple87man
Joined: 2/23/2008
Msg: 257
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 2/27/2008 9:09:04 PM
Europe (or UK as I know) has a better set of laws. There is a cap on the maximum amount of CS payment. Looks like some women in North America (reading the responses here) mostly go into the marriage with dollars signs. Greed..Greedy!!! Most women are generally greedy when it comes to this issue..."in the best interests of the child"!!
 simple87man
Joined: 2/23/2008
Msg: 259
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/27/2008 10:02:14 PM
..lets face it...there are far more female "gold diggers" than male. Besides statements that "the reason most women get custody of children is because they do care more about their children and their needs" is just totally untrue (just like saying men are more intelligent than women)!

It so beats my mind as to why women dont ask for "equality" when it comes to child custody! Why dont they preach the same "feminazi" principles that men and women are equal hence men should get same custody arrangements (or offer joint custody) as them.

Talk about having your cake and eating it!
 *Just Jim*
Joined: 7/6/2007
Msg: 262
Prenuptial Agreements and Maximum Child Support payment!
Posted: 3/28/2008 4:52:57 PM

PS...I have never been in a situation where custody was an issue with children, but it only seems fair that both parents are EQUALLY responsible for all of the costs of supporting those children.


Absolutely! Being responsible is paramount for the well being of the children then personal issues of the parents,[aka-adults]

And the other shame and which I find quite sad & destructive is when these so called adults [parents]use their children as fawns in the sole propose as a tool against each other.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >