Peter F Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) I've told a few people about that and they can't believe it. Now I have another question about Canada's child support laws. In light of the "best interest of the child" line of thought, how does a child from a man's second family fare? Here the child/children from the first family takes precedence. Not exactly in the "best interest of the child" (from the second family), I must admit. Child support payments are very simple things to figure out. They probably do the same thing in the states....There is a chart. How much a parent pays is dependant upon thier gross income and the payment is per child supported. In my income bracket it comes to almost $300.00/month/child. About half of what I think it should be, but nevertheless thats what the courts have determined it shall be. Less income means lower child support. More income means more child support. How many families are involved is irrelevant. That is how much you pay to the parent/guardian of each child supported. You get a raise then your support goes up. You lose your job and your support goes down. (mind you the parent will have to get a court order amending the previous court order setting out the amount of child support to be paid.) From my understanding, When it comes to child support and divorce, the interests of the child outwiegh all other considerations. I think it is right for the courts to do so. A child's well being is totally dependant upon the adults around them. The courts recognize (in this country anyways) that too often those adults are more concerned with themselves than the child. In a court-room the child/ren has no advocate pleading thier interest. If the judges don't do it themselves during the 'last resort' of the courtroom, who will? If my childs right overides my right to my money in a court, I say good. And that applies to his step-father too and everyone else involved in parenting him. Edited December 7, 2007 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) I've told a few people about that and they can't believe it. Now I have another question about Canada's child support laws. In light of the "best interest of the child" line of thought, how does a child from a man's second family fare? Here the child/children from the first family takes precedence. Not exactly in the "best interest of the child" (from the second family), I must admit.Any man getting divorced in Canada is generally forced to hand over slightly more than 50% of pretax income to his kids and ex-wife because of the odious 'best interests of the child' rules. This applies to millionaires as well as burger flippers. The mandatory minimum payments per child may be much lower but the family courts in this country generally increase the amounts to consume as much of the man's income as possible. If he was saddled with step kids as well his natural kids would have their support payments reduced.To make matters worse, your support obligations do not end at age 18 - you can be forced to pay for university as well. Which is pretty rediculous if you think about it. A father who does not get divorced has a right to choose to not to pay for his child's university education - but if he gets divorces he has to pay - even for step kids. The law is criminal. Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) Any man getting divorced in Canada is generally forced to hand over slightly more than 50% of pretax income to his kids and ex-wife because of the odious 'best interests of the child' rules. This applies to millionaires as well as burger flippers. The mandatory minimum payments per child may be much lower but the family courts in this country generally increase the amounts to consume as much of the man's income as possible. If he was saddled with step kids as well his natural kids would have their support payments reduced. Riverwind, where are you getting this information from? I got divorced. I've been shown the charts. Child support payments are fixed at a certain minimum depending upon income. And they are per child. I suspect you may be confusing 'child support' with 'spousal support'. They are not the same thing. Family Courts in this country cannot and do not set child support above what is mandated on the chart. Any parent can agree to pay more than the minimum child support, of course, but they cannot be forced by the courts to do so. Spousal support however, is a different matter. Millionaires can be end up paying oodles for spousal support depending upon the decree of the court - there is no chart for spousal support. Get a good lawyer if you are going to fight how much Spousal support you will be liable for...but don't waste your time and money on lawyers to dispute Child support - That is fixed and all the Lawyers in the land and appeals and bankruptcys and debt wont change the level of Child support you are liable for. It is fixed; This much per child; no more and no less. Any man getting divorced in Canada is generally forced to hand over slightly more than 50% of pretax income to his kids and ex-wife because of the odious 'best interests of the child' rules. He may very well pay slightly more than 50% of his pretax income - but it is not because of odious child support rules. To make matters worse, your support obligations do not end at age 18 - you can be forced to pay for university as well. Which is pretty rediculous if you think about it. A father who does not get divorced has a right to choose to not to pay for his child's university education - but if he gets divorces he has to pay - even for step kids. The law is criminal. No, you are wrong. Child support payments continue as long as the child is living at home and going to school. Yes, that includes university. My daughter is 22 and attending university and I am still obligated to pay child support as long as she continues to do so. My son is 18 and quitting CEGEP after this term. I will no longer be liable to pay child support for him.(even if he is allowed to continue living at home). But - I am not paying for my daughters education. I am paying Child Support. The costs of her education are included in the Child Support - to an extent. But also sent exta money to help her pay for her tuition (horrors!). A father who does not get divorced has a right to choose to not to pay for his child's university education - but if he gets divorces he has to pay - even for step kids. The law is criminal Bullshit. I have (had) the option of not paying for my childs education. But my obligation to help support the child does not end until the child is done school, wether I pay for her tuitions etc or not.Just the same as the married father; His obligations are the same for the young adult living at home and attending school. He can choose to help with university costs or not, as he wills, but he is still obligated to put food on thier plates and pay for heat and clothes and busses. There is no difference financially between the two. Edited December 7, 2007 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Not being able to discern between child support and spousal support is the biggest problem divorced/separated men have. They see both cheques going to the same woman and assume its all hers to spend on clothes, makeup and pool-boys. There real problem is with spousal support, not child support. But thier resentments cloud the difference and so they have to forgo thier dream corvette and the Grecian Formula...f'ing b**** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Riverwind, where are you getting this information from? I got divorced. I've been shown the charts. Child support payments are fixed at a certain minimum depending upon income. And they are per child.From people with first hand experience. These are the minimum amounts and the court is free to increase those amounts as it sees fit (a frequently does so). Also the father is on the hook for any incidentals such as daycare, sport camps etc. You may have avoided the nightmare because your ex-spouse is a reasonable person. Quebec has its own rules which may also be a factor.Family Courts in this country cannot and do not set child support above what is mandated on the chart. Any parent can agree to pay more than the minimum child support, of course, but they cannot be forced by the courts to do so.The courts can do whatever they want wrt support payments. Couples can come to the court with a mutually acceptable seperation agreement and the judge will rewrite it if he/she feels it is not in the best interest of the child.Bullshit. I have (had) the option of not paying for my childs education.Not true. Your ex-spouse could have taken you to court and demanded that pay as a special expense. You are lucky if you ex-spouse wouldn't do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 I was wrong in previous posts. I have claimed that support payments are per child. They are not. child support guidelines 2 kids and $50k income: Alberta = $729 Nova Scotia = 715 British Columbia = 759 Ontario = 753 Manitoba = 699 Prince Edward Island = 714 New Brunswick = 712 Quebec = 656 Newfoundland & Labrador = 699 Saskatchewan = 699 Northwest Territories = 758 Yukon = 752 Nunavut = 796 Also, the child support amounts are not fixed in stone as I have been making them out to be. They could vary, but such variation seems to depend on prior agreement between the parties. These levels are used by the courts where the court cannot determine prior agreement in a dispute. Still, there they are and they are pretty cheap if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) Still, there they are and they are pretty cheap if you ask me.25% of a the payers after tax income. Toss in $200 or so per month for special expenses and you are up to 30%. After a second divorce with step kids you would be up to 60%. That, of course, assumes there is no spousal support.The system is even more odious for fathers with shared custody and an ex-spouse with significantly lower income. In this situation, the father has to pay full child support plus all of the living expenses for the kids while he has custody. That said, I will agree that the base amount is quite reasonable if you don't have custody. It is the extras that get tacked on if you have a greedy/vindictive ex-spouse that turn it into a nightmare. Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) After a second divorce with step kids you would be up to 60%. There's been a lot said since my last post that I don't have time to comment on right now, but I'd like to at least clarify this for now. What about a second divorce with biological kids? Or a second relationship that produced kids without marriage? Do the kids from the second relationship/marriage get as much support as the kids from the first relationship/marriage? Because here they don't. To given an example, I was just talking to a woman who gets $17 a week support for her child. The children from the first relationship (there's three children) get $900/month. She says the judge basically told her 'the second family doesn't count' because the first family takes precedence. Since you are saying Canada always goes by "the best interest of the child," I'm wondering about second/third families, which isn't uncommon in this day and age. Seems to me the man would be left with literally nothing by the third relationship if the same equation applies to each situation. Edited December 7, 2007 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) There's been a lot said since my last post that I don't have time to comment on right now, but I'd like to at least clarify this for now. What about a second divorce with biological kids?The minimum payment calculation is quite ridgid. You go to the table, look up your income and that is what you pay - no exceptions unless you can demonstrate financial hardship. If the judge accepts the financial hardship argument then the money will go to the kids most in need which means that the step kids could theoretically get more than the biological kids if the step kid's mother has less income. That said, I have not heard of any actual cases where this was an issue. Edited December 7, 2007 by Riverwind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.