Important Child Support Question - Please help?

[Dean 'MF' Jones]

My girlfriend is going through a tough spot with her ex. They share custody of two children the daughter who's 13 and their son is 10. They have an arrangement that he sees the children every other weekend and every Wednesday and every other Thursday. With the Bill C-560 in place it may prevent her ex from paying child support although he doesn't pay alimony. He would gain custody of the children for an entire week and alternate. The Daughter already stated she doesn't want this arrangement since she's old enough to make that choice. Also he asked her today for the Children's social insurance numbers. Why would he do that? She said he had an appointment to re-work the separation papers.

Any helpful advice would be much appreciated! Thanks!!!!

 

[Mr Deeds]

She needs a good lawyer, also the father will always have to pay support as long as the children live with the mother, there are very strict laws regarding this. Now days the courts do take the child's wishes into consideration most of the time. Also the courts, in more than 80% of the cases rule in favor of the mother. Chances are even better if there was some abuse or abandonment on the part of the father. In any case as I said get a good lawyer. PM me if you need a name.

 

[mandrill]

I practice family law and I had to Google that bill. It's a private member's bill and has little or no chance of being passed. The whole concept of "equal parenting" is highly dubious in the eyes of family law specialist lawyers and judges.

The only thing she has to worry about is the 40% rule. If he parents for more than 39.999% of the kids' time, the judge is allowed to disregard the Guidelines and go apeshit free-ass in his child support ruling. Your gf doesn't want that. Fight to keep him below 40% and all will be well.

 

[Vixens]

My girlfriend is going through a tough spot with her ex. They share custody of two children the daughter who's 13 and their son is 10. They have an arrangement that he sees the children every other weekend and every Wednesday and every other Thursday. With the Bill C-560 in place it may prevent her ex from paying child support although he doesn't pay alimony. He would gain custody of the children for an entire week and alternate. The Daughter already stated she doesn't want this arrangement since she's old enough to make that choice. Also he asked her today for the Children's social insurance numbers. Why would he do that? She said he had an appointment to re-work the separation papers.

Any helpful advice would be much appreciated! Thanks!!!!

The age at which a child can make the decision on with whom to live is actually 14 although at 13 her wishes will be taken into consideration.
Question for you though...why would your girlfriend want to limit the time the kids spend with their dad? Is he irresponsible, or not a good father or does she believe that the only reason he "wants" them is to avoid paying? My understanding is that even in a shared custody arrangement child support is based on the offset method so if he makes 100k and she earns 50k he would still be required to pay child support although a lesser amount which is fair.. Of course the opposite also applies... .Child support is the right of the child not the parent and is used to equalize lifestyle between both parents homes.
My ex and I earn approximately the same amount every year. He pays well,well below table amounts and none towards their section 7 expenses ( both of my kids are competitive athletes ). He's an ass and it will eventually come back to bite him in the butt, but not once ever have I ever encouraged them to stay with me and not spend equal time with their dad nor do I ever discuss my personal feelings about him with them. They are with me 80% of the time but that's mostly due to their schedules and my flexibility. They love their dad as they should and I'm not going to interfere with that for an extra few thousand dollars in CS.
A court battle is not the answer if maintaining harmony between households is the goal. Look into mediation and arbitration as well. That being said, the advise of a lawyer is very very important just remind your girlfriend that how this ends up going is ultimately a reflection of how she approaches this.

Good luck!

Steph

 

[kkelso]

The age at which a child can make the decision on with whom to live is actually 14 although at 13 her wishes will be taken into consideration.
Question for you though...why would your girlfriend want to limit the time the kids spend with their dad? Is he irresponsible, or not a good father or does she believe that the only reason he "wants" them is to avoid paying? My understanding is that even in a shared custody arrangement child support is based on the offset method so if he makes 100k and she earns 50k he would still be required to pay child support although a lesser amount which is fair.. Of course the opposite also applies... .Child support is the right of the child not the parent and is used to equalize lifestyle between both parents homes.
My ex and I earn approximately the same amount every year. He pays well,well below table amounts and none towards their section 7 expenses ( both of my kids are competitive athletes ). He's an ass and it will eventually come back to bite him in the butt, but not once ever have I ever encouraged them to stay with me and not spend equal time with their dad nor do I ever discuss my personal feelings about him with them. They are with me 80% of the time but that's mostly due to their schedules and my flexibility. They love their dad as they should and I'm not going to interfere with that for an extra few thousand dollars in CS.
A court battle is not the answer if maintaining harmony between households is the goal. Look into mediation and arbitration as well. That being said, the advise of a lawyer is very very important just remind your girlfriend that how this ends up going is ultimately a reflection of how she approaches this.

Good luck!

Steph

Quite an enlightened attitude and well stated. Of course I'm not surprised coming from you, still nice to read though.

Respect - KK

 

[mandrill]

The age when the child's views as to who she wants to live with is taken into account is TWELVE, not 14.

The issue I mentioned above is that a guy can claim reduced support obligations when he has the child for at least 40% of the time. And then you usually - but not always - get into offset calculations. Many guys fight like hell to get that 40%, purely to reduce their support.

 

[james t kirk]

The issue I mentioned above is that a guy can claim reduced support obligations when he has the child for at least 40% of the time. And then you usually - but not always - get into offset calculations. Many guys fight like hell to get that 40%, purely to reduce their support.

I'm not in that situation, but I know guys that are. Their argument is that they pay their ex wife a grand a month child support and they KNOW that there is no way in hell that she spends it (or even a fraction) on the kid, that money goes right into her purse for her good times. She'll spend it on the new boyfriend, new clothes for her, and a new hot tub (thinking of my one friend here), anything but the kid.

For every irresponsible father, there is an irresponsible mother out there too.

 

[Vixens]

The age when the child's views as to who she wants to live with is taken into account is TWELVE, not 14.

The issue I mentioned above is that a guy can claim reduced support obligations when he has the child for at least 40% of the time. And then you usually - but not always - get into offset calculations. Many guys fight like hell to get that 40%, purely to reduce their support.

At twelve a child's views are taken into account, just as at age thirteen but from my understanding ( and I'm certainly not a lawyer ) at age fourteen, a child can decide with whom to reside and a court won't force him or her to go to mom or dads.
All I'm saying is that moms shouldn't try to withhold children from their dads to max out on child support nor should dads want to get to 40% so they can pay less. These are children for the love of god. Not weapons.
Do I pay significantly more than my ex does for my kids? Yup. Do I resent his lack of consideration? Yup. Does it piss me off when my daughter comes home and says that her dad told her he wouldn't buy her a $5.00 t-shirt that she wanted because "that's what he gives mommy money for" when he's contributing less than 50% of table support and zero towards section 7 expenses? Absolutely. Will I ever bad mouth their father in front of them? Never. It not in my children's best interest and as their mother their well being comes first. Always.
To the OP. Talk to your girlfriend about what is in her children's best interest. Try to get her to leave her feelings for her ex behind. If she focuses on her kids the path is pretty easy. It's hard. Very hard to remain supportive of a relationship with a man whose eyes she'd like to remove with a very dull spoon, but it will benefit her kids and ultimately make her life easier.

Steph

 

[richaceg]

Be careful when presenting your case. Not all the time the childs wishes will be granted. You cannot prevent a father from parenting his child if he sincerely wants to and there are no signs of abuse. I agree that mothers usually have the favorable situation. But as a mother, preventing your child to have a time with their father can sometimes backfire. And judges will look into that. Specially when there's $$$ involved.

 

[Sexy_Dave]

I practice family law and I had to Google that bill. It's a private member's bill and has little or no chance of being passed. The whole concept of "equal parenting" is highly dubious in the eyes of family law specialist lawyers and judges.

The only thing she has to worry about is the 40% rule. If he parents for more than 39.999% of the kids' time, the judge is allowed to disregard the Guidelines and go apeshit free-ass in his child support ruling. Your gf doesn't want that. Fight to keep him below 40% and all will be well.

That is because they cannot stand the fact some people may actually know what is better for their children and themselves. The last thing lawyers and judges want is to be told what to do. Just enforce the orders and agreementrs as they were originally set out and compel parties to act accordingly instead of trying to function in an area where they have no expertise. "The best interest of the children" pffft what a load of legalese crap. lol

 

[bazokajoe]

I practice family law and I had to Google that bill. It's a private member's bill and has little or no chance of being passed. The whole concept of "equal parenting" is highly dubious in the eyes of family law specialist lawyers and judges.

The only thing she has to worry about is the 40% rule. If he parents for more than 39.999% of the kids' time, the judge is allowed to disregard the Guidelines and go apeshit free-ass in his child support ruling. Your gf doesn't want that. Fight to keep him below 40% and all will be well.

Am I reading this right? You want her to keep the ex under 40% just so she can keep milking him and deny him his right to see his daughter?

 

[scfd146]

I've been through this, and unfortunately , still dealing with a lot of shit 8 years later! Just because a parent has a child more than 40% of the time doesn't mean you automatically pay less.....the judge MAY decide that you will pay less, or he may say you still need to pay the table amount regardless of the 40%+.

When I first split with my ex, my eldest daughter lived with me full time, my other daughter and son with her, primarily. I paid table amounts to her for 2 kids, she paid table amount to me for 1. I had the 2 that lived with her approx 45% of the time, and received no reduction. My daughter that lived full time with me rarely ever saw her mom!

The funny thing is now all 3 kids live with me full time. The oldest still doesn't see her mom at all, the other 2 see her maybe once a week, no overnights, and now the ex doesn't want to pay me any child support, AND now thinks I should give her spousal support because her income has changed now that she doesn't get any child support!! Crazy huh? I know I'll win the fight because I'm right and have plenty of ammo, and she's wrong and quite nuts, but, I've still had to pay thousands to lawyers to prove these facts! That's the shitty thing, what a waste of money, from both sides!

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

I've been through this, and unfortunately , still dealing with a lot of shit 8 years later! Just because a parent has a child more than 40% of the time doesn't mean you automatically pay less.....the judge MAY decide that you will pay less, or he may say you still need to pay the table amount regardless of the 40%+.

When I first split with my ex, my eldest daughter lived with me full time, my other daughter and son with her, primarily. I paid table amounts to her for 2 kids, she paid table amount to me for 1. I had the 2 that lived with her approx 45% of the time, and received no reduction. My daughter that lived full time with me rarely ever saw her mom!

The funny thing is now all 3 kids live with me full time. The oldest still doesn't see her mom at all, the other 2 see her maybe once a week, no overnights, and now the ex doesn't want to pay me any child support, AND now thinks I should give her spousal support because her income has changed now that she doesn't get any child support!! Crazy huh? I know I'll win the fight because I'm right and have plenty of ammo, and she's wrong and quite nuts, but, I've still had to pay thousands to lawyers to prove these facts! That's the shitty thing, what a waste of money, from both sides!

I know of a few men who have their kids 50% of the time, literally. To the point that even "school" time has been consider. On certain days if the child is sick, the father is called to pick them up. On other days, it is the mother. Or visitation is set week by week. No reduction in support. The basis being that the fathers are making 80K + and the mothers 20K -. Therefore based on balancing the standard of living, table support is issued. IT IS FUCKED. Especially since the moms I know, all have BFs that live in the home but their income is not allowed to be added to the mothers "household income" because the BF has a different "mailing address".

Now let's not even get into the child tax credit and where that goes. The HST rebate, the trillium monthly benefit, etc.

The argument about where the "support" goes is petty and pathetic when used on both sides. Steph's example is just BS. Give $5 for the shirt FFS. However the argument that mommy spends the money on her BF doesn't fly either. Food is paid for either way. housing is paid for either way. If mom pays the total rent with "her" money, then she can use a % of the "support" money that was to cover the child's housing cost and put it towards whatever.

However, the whole court system is screwed. I think that men need to start stepping up and fighting more for their rights and hopefully gain more equality. There are many women, as sad as it is, who do not deserve to have their kids full time. There are plenty of fathers that can offer a better living environment and family support then mothers. Simply because a woman carried their kids for 9 months, does not give automatic trump cards on the rights of fathers.

This is a very VERY big pet peeve of mine.

 

[**Sophie**]

With all due respect, it does not only happen to men, it happens with woman as well!!! I can wholeheartedly agree, that the system is fucked! and no offence to any lawyers out there, some are good, some aren't, but in my experience, they play the wear out game..let's see who wears out first...I know first hand, I had gone through court since 1998....1998!!!!! That's 16 years of my 40 years of life! I too, am extremely passionate about this issue!!!!

I know of a few men who have their kids 50% of the time, literally. To the point that even "school" time has been consider. On certain days if the child is sick, the father is called to pick them up. On other days, it is the mother. Or visitation is set week by week. No reduction in support. The basis being that the fathers are making 80K + and the mothers 20K -. Therefore based on balancing the standard of living, table support is issued. IT IS FUCKED. Especially since the moms I know, all have BFs that live in the home but their income is not allowed to be added to the mothers "household income" because the BF has a different "mailing address".

Now let's not even get into the child tax credit and where that goes. The HST rebate, the trillium monthly benefit, etc.

The argument about where the "support" goes is petty and pathetic when used on both sides. Steph's example is just BS. Give $5 for the shirt FFS. However the argument that mommy spends the money on her BF doesn't fly either. Food is paid for either way. housing is paid for either way. If mom pays the total rent with "her" money, then she can use a % of the "support" money that was to cover the child's housing cost and put it towards whatever.

However, the whole court system is screwed. I think that men need to start stepping up and fighting more for their rights and hopefully gain more equality. There are many women, as sad as it is, who do not deserve to have their kids full time. There are plenty of fathers that can offer a better living environment and family support then mothers. Simply because a woman carried their kids for 9 months, does not give automatic trump cards on the rights of fathers.

This is a very VERY big pet peeve of mine.

 

[Ms.FemmeFatale]

With all due respect, it does not only happen to men, it happens with woman as well!!! I can wholeheartedly agree, that the system is fucked! and no offence to any lawyers out there, some are good, some aren't, but in my experience, they play the wear out game..let's see who wears out first...I know first hand, I had gone through court since 1998....1998!!!!! That's 16 years of my 40 years of life! I too, am extremely passionate about this issue!!!!

To be clear, I did not say that it only happens to men. I never would say that nor do I think it.

I know women who deal with dead beat dads. Men who could give two shits about paying a dime in support. I am one of them. I have NEVER received a SINGLE child support payment for either of my children nor any money for anything sports/activity related. Yet, he got his kids every second weekend and alternated all holidays. It sucks because I had to make up the difference financially. However, I am a mother and as such, in my opinion, it is my job to take care of my kids 100% anyway. I am not here to disturb the relationship between my kids and their father unless they are being harmed while in his care and they never were.

I didn't bother to waste years in the courts, paying lawyers and dealing with the stress. I had enough stress raising my kids as single mother with no support. He would just simply not work on the books and would be cared for by his mom or GF. He doesn't have a license, he doesn't file taxes. He is the text book case of a deadbeat. I simply deal. My job as a mother out ways forcing anything on him and my time was better suited to caring for them on my own then feeding the pockets of judges and lawyers. That is just me though. Many people feel that I lapsed my parental responsibility by not forcing him to pay. To which they are entitled to their opinion.

However, while I agree that women get screwed as well, I believe wholeheartedly that men get screwed more by the "system" while women get screwed over more by the partner they choose. That is just my opinion.

 

[bazokajoe]

I am thankfull everyday I have never been married or had lil ankle biters.

God bless total freedom.