Jump to content

Step Parent Child Support Laws and Ethics


Recommended Posts

There are really two classes of step Dads: the ones which entered the picture when the kids were very young the kids never had another father as far as they know. And those which enter the picture later. In the former case I would expect that there are cases where a step dad gets custody. In the latter, hell would freeze over first but financial obligations are the same.

No they aren't necessarily. The amount of support is prorated based on length of relationship and extent to which stepdad supported the kids financially. Likewise "custody" could be joint or visitation depending on various factors.

It isn't all-or-nothing like you're trying to paint it.

.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Tim i see your piont,

Cybercoma:

Does the law take into account how many fathers her children have....from what i gather out of all the posts the answer is no....so there is nothing stopping a women with X amount of kids from collecting as many fathers as she wishes.....nothing in the law to prevent this from happening...

One other question you said that the step parent has legal rights to the children...and could take mom to court for custody...has this happened , where step dad is given custody....and where would he stand in priorty to recieve custody or shared custody....after the orginal DAD, after mom,not sure....this could get very confusing....

And what ever was wrong with the old law.... orginal dad paid for the kids he fathered....

google it yourself.

support is proportionate.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Step parents should be able to assist with childcare without incurring obligations much like a sibiling/grandparent/nanny can assist with childcare without incurring obligation.

A step parent is involved (I would say intimately but BC would twist that into something other than what I meant, imagine if BC weren't around to twist our words) with the parent of the child/children. A sibling/grandparent/nanny is not. A step parent has moved in and taken on responsibility for the child/children. A step parent should not move in if they do not want to incur financial obligations. It's pretty simple to figure out for a potential step parent. And, I would assume that a single female parent would kick this dude to the curb anyway if his primary concern is supporting possible future step children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, I would assume that a single female parent would kick this dude to the curb anyway if his primary concern is supporting possible future step children.

There are women who think it is unethical to expect a step dad to support children after the relationship breaks down. In fact, the court case referenced above was about a woman who did not want to kick out a step dad that refused to take on responsibility. That I why I think it should be for each couple to decide and the courts to accept whatever arrangement they agree to.

Bottom line: an unethical law is not made right by claiming its "for the kids".

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused. IF a woman did not want her ex step partner to support her financially, why did it end up in court?

It was a hypothetical case. She want to have a baby by artificial insemination. Her live in male partner did not want to be part of it but agreed to support it if they could sign an agreement in advance. They asked a court to rule on it and were told it would be unenforceable. This is wrong. Two adults should be able to enter into an agreement in advance and have the court recognize it. This is one of worst examples of the 'nanny state'. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a hypothetical case. She want to have a baby by artificial insemination. Her live in male partner did not want to be part of it but agreed to support it if they could sign an agreement in advance. They asked a court to rule on it and were told it would be unenforceable. This is wrong. Two adults should be able to enter into an agreement in advance and have the court recognize it. This is one of worst examples of the 'nanny state'.

Let's not go with hypothetical cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not go with hypothetical cases.

Why? Because it shows that you are wrong to assume that every single mother believes that their partner should be responsible for non-biological kids? I know from personal relationships that this is not true. The court case is a publicly available example.

If a woman wants her mate to be on the hook for her kids even if the relationship fails then she should be required to make those desires clear. If the guy agrees in advance then he can't change his mind later. If he refuses and the woman does not terminate the relationship then their should be no obligation.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a woman wants her mate to be on the hook for her kids even if the relationship fails then she should be required to make those desires clear. If the guy agrees in advance then he can't change his mind later. If he refuses and the woman does not terminate the relationship then their should be no obligation.

If a mature man and I am assuming he has his full mental capacities, engages in a relationship with a woman with children and goes on to marry or live with, then I can assume he loves his stepkids as his own. Need I say more???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a mature man and I am assuming he has his full mental capacities, engages in a relationship with a woman with children and goes on to marry or live with, then I can assume he loves his stepkids as his own. Need I say more???

A strawman. Grandparents love kids. Uncles and aunts love kids. They don't get stuck with support obligations even if they are living in the household. This is NOT about the kids. It is about greed. You think that money should taken from men and given to women and you really don't care if it is reasonable because it is about greed. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strawman. Grandparents love kids. Uncles and aunts love kids. They don't get stuck with support obligations even if they are living in the household. This is NOT about the kids. It is about greed. You think that money should taken from men and given to women and you really don't care if it is reasonable because it is about greed.

When a man and woman get together to form a family relationship with children, there is no thought about being 'stuck' with obligations. It is you that is hung up about greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A strawman. Grandparents love kids. Uncles and aunts love kids. They don't get stuck with support obligations even if they are living in the household. This is NOT about the kids. It is about greed. You think that money should taken from men and given to women and you really don't care if it is reasonable because it is about greed.

I feel sorry for you because obviously you have been hurt in your past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a man and woman get together to form a family relationship with children, there is no thought about being 'stuck' with obligations. It is you that is hung up about greed.

It is being "stuck" if the man and the women agree in advance that the man is not a stand in parent and the court disagrees.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for you because obviously you have been hurt in your past.

Spare me the condescending crap. You may be a narrow minded zealot who thinks that all relationships must fit into the mould of what you think is right. But in the real world there are many types of relationships and the court has no business interfering.

At a certain level you are just like people arguing that same sex marriages are wrong because children need a male and female parent. There is no fundamental rule that says that every step parent living with children wants/needs to be a stand in parent for those children.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no fundamental rule that says that every step parent living with children wants/needs to be a stand in parent for those children.

Not sure your point here? So are you saying that a man living with a woman who happens to have children is there just for a free ride or should I say, a free fuck?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure your point here? So are you saying that a man living with a woman who happens to have children is there just for a free ride or should I say, a free fuck?

More strawmen that distract from the issue. There are many types of positive relationships that an adult can form with children. The view that you express is only relationship that is permissible is one of a 'stand in parent'. This is a overly restrictive view that is really no different from people saying that only male and female partners should have children. The state should leave it up to people to decide what type of relationship they want to have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More strawmen that distract from the issue. There are many types of positive relationships that an adult can form with children. The view that you express is only relationship that is permissible is one of a 'stand in parent'. This is a overly restrictive view that is really no different from people saying that only male and female partners should have children. The state should leave it up to people to decide what type of relationship they want to have.

Ok Tim. Let's stray from the original discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your thoughts are so freakin weird tim!

My thoughts are based on the principal that people should be free to define what type of relationships that they want and the government should not interfere. If people disagree and end up in court then any written agreement prior to starting the relationship should be binding or least only overridden in the most egregious circumstances.

I have no issue with a woman terminating a relationship if she finds the man does not want to be a stand-in parent to her kids. If he agrees to keep the relationship then he should be on the hook. But if he makes his view clear she should not be able to ignore that disagreement and later sue for support.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you come back to 'the man does not want to be a stand-in parent'. What are you talking about. Is this what relationships are all about? Being a stand in parent to a child? You are so paranoid about this issue and I suspect this is clearly a personal issue with you and not at all related to a general issue and if it is, it is clearly not a fair assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are based on the principal that people should be free to define what type of relationships that they want and the government should not interfere. If people disagree and end up in court then any written agreement prior to starting the relationship should be binding or least only overridden in the most egregious circumstances.

I have no issue with a woman terminating a relationship if she finds the man does not want to be a stand-in parent to her kids. If he agrees to keep the relationship then he should be on the hook. But if he makes his view clear she should not be able to ignore that disagreement and later sue for support.

Oh yes she can. The issue of child support stands alone. When the 'parents (step or not) who BOTH have been providing for the children - as they inevitably do by sharing costs of heat, transport, mortgage/rent, food, clothing etc etc - should those parents split then the courts do not and should not treat the children as inanimate objects with no dog in the splitting up race.

But TimG believes the children have no interest. Only the poor step-parent has a financial interest and the courts should ignore any diminishment of support for the children.

And the supposed 'hypothetical' case referred to above clearly addressed the point. The case was brought before the courts to determine if the non-parenting agreement would stand. The Alberta court rejected such a thing for the obvious reason: the detrimental

effect upon the children involved. INVOLVED - not standing on a shelf somewhere to be dusted off from time to time.

Edited by Peter F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But TimG believes the children have no interest. Only the poor step-parent has a financial interest and the courts should ignore any diminishment of support for the children.

A single parent is going to be poorer than a couple and the kids will be worse off. A step parent appearing will only improve their circumstances. If the step parent leaves they go back to where they would have been if the step parent was never there. Why is this wrong? Why do you believe that kids have any right to claim benefits from a relationship that they used to live without and now longer exists?

More importantly, if the consequence of the law is that fewer people re-marry then kids, in aggregate, are worse off than they would be if the laws allowed for parents to make their own decisions. Why is it a good thing to make it more difficult for people with kids to form new relationships that could benefit the kids even if there is no guarantee of support after the relationship ends?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe that kids have any right to claim benefits from a relationship that they used to live without and now longer exists?

No longer exists? Why do you think that when one parent severs their relation to the spouse the relationship to the child also ends? Are they one and the same entity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly, if the consequence of the law is that fewer people re-marry then kids, in aggregate, are worse off than they would be if the laws allowed for parents to make their own decisions. Why is it a good thing to make it more difficult for people with kids to form new relationships that could benefit the kids even if there is no guarantee of support after the relationship ends?

There's an obvious solution here: A man who holds your views should be banned from relationships with a woman with kids. Afterall, the woman has enough on her plate. She doesn't need an overgrown selfish immature whining 'child' on her hands. :)

.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No longer exists? Why do you think that when one parent severs their relation to the spouse the relationship to the child also ends? Are they one and the same entity?

In many cases with older kids the step parent relationship with the child was contingent on the relationship with the mother.

When the latter ends so does the former.

The trouble is the courts think that since the step parent improved the family's financial situation then the kids are now entitled to that financial support even after than relationship ends. This is a completely irrational position since the kids are only going back to where they were before the step parent - a position they would still be in if the step parent had realized the absurd nature of the law before starting the relationship.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...