The supreme court rules on ex-spouse

[RB]

In this instance is means that a majority of fathers are affected and will affect their lives financially no?

Divorce dads are losers

[FTA Lawyer]

I suspect that most commentators on this judgment will support it. It simply acknowledges that child support is the right of the child, and if your income goes up from where it was when the original support order was imposed, then your support payments should go up accordingly.

In the one case, while the father dutifully paid support on the level appropriate for someone with a much lower income, his child was shortchanged the benefit of some $100,000.00. Just think of the things that the kid did without while dad lived with more.

On the other hand, the SCC did not make retroactive orders mandatory...which the Alberta Court of Appeal tried to do. They have left the final say on a retroactive order in the hands of the trial judges and have made it clear that the under-paying spouse's intentions, good or bad behaviour, and potential hardships should be considered when deciding whether to make a retroactive order.

I can't find any fault with the reasoning myself.

FTA

[Renegade]

IMV the ruling is consistent with the law and was not unexpected. The real issue I think is with the law itself.

Support payment are only based upon the income of the non-custodial parent. Support payments do not take into consideration:

1. The income of the custodial parent (usually the mother)

2. The actual need of the supported child.

3. The actual amount of money the non-custodial parent (generally the father) spends on the child.

To compound the unfairness, the non-custodial parent, gets NO SAY in how the money is spent, or even if it is spent on the child at all.

The SCC ruling is quite consistent in continuing the beating that non-custodial parents have recieved.

[mikedavid00]

IMV the ruling is consistent with the law and was not unexpected. The real issue I think is with the law itself.

Support payment are only based upon the income of the non-custodial parent. Support payments do not take into consideration:

1. The income of the custodial parent (usually the mother)

2. The actual need of the supported child.

3. The actual amount of money the non-custodial parent (generally the father) spends on the child.

To compound the unfairness, the non-custodial parent, gets NO SAY in how the money is spent, or even if it is spent on the child at all.

The SCC ruling is quite consistent in continuing the beating that non-custodial parent's have recieved.

I agree. I've never been in or hope to go through a divorce. However, I have had ex gf's who are psyco try to ruin my life and I fully understand that hurt and tormentt the fathers go through when they are getting dragged through the dirt.

I don't feel fathers should be paying 40% of their pay to give to a woman who has a new bf living with her that is also making money to support the children. I also feel that the payments are a bit too much. Children are relatively 'cheap' to keep and feed.

I felt sorry for this one guy who called up with the court serving him a bill of $4000 so his son can have braces while the mother has a live in bf taking cooking crystal meth. Imagine his life.

I swear, if I ever married a psyco and she wanted to battle it out with me and drag our kids through the dirt I would do two things:

1 - Move to another city (no shoving the kids off on me while her bf of the month stays over).

2 - Immiediately go into the trades and then become self employed and have a 'REALLY BAD YEAR' every year.

I can see myself in court now: "Your honor, I can't afford a lawyer, i'm self employed, look - I only made $3000 last year.. if she wants $20 than that's fine.. but it's all I can afford.

And outside the courtroom I'd get into my 3 series BMW and give her the finger.

On the phone I'd tell my ex: "I'm doing well this year so far.. so I'm goign to give you an extra 5 dollars this time around".

And she'll drag me to court again and againg and I'll wave my t4 around: "This is a T4? Don't you see? I'm having a real bad year!"

The judge will say: "Mr Mike, I don't beleive you and quite frankly you should be ashamed of yourrself!. However Miss Phsyco, his T4 says he made $3000 and the maximum I can give you is $30 a month."

I'll say: "That's good your honor, she can use the money for taking the kids out for ice cream and mini golfing once a month like a good mother should"

And give her the finger again outside the courtroom.

[WillyNilly]

If I understand the context of your post, a woman who gets a divorce should be prevented from having a boyfriend, or God forbid, getting married again. IF she DARES to commit such a "crime" the FATHER of her children should NOT have to support them or pay Child Support.

Only if she is living like a nun for the rest of her life should she be entitled to Child Support.

Kids are cheap to raise, oh sure they are, they dont really need housing, clothing, food, education, recreational activities, dental care, and how dare they expect or ask for things like bikes, roller blades, skate boards, rooms of their own, or school supplies.

But then why should a poor father be asked to pay for any of these things?

Whats something a lot of "soon to be divorced" fathers do when they heading for a Child Support Hearing? They quit their jobs or arrange to get fired, "sell" assets to friends, hide property and investments. Arrange to get paid "under the table" so there is no record of their income.

The poor poor man who had to pay for his son's braces ! Who would have paid for them if the couple had remained married? The Government? You're right, the kid should be "punished" and forced to live with crooked teeth and has no right to expect dental care.

FYI the custodial parents income is also considered in divorce.

The federal guidelines are built on the principle that both parents should share the same portion of their income with their child as they would if they had continued to live together. In broad terms, the guidelines ask, "what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her children?" and support payments are set accordingly.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute to the costs of raising the children in proportion to his or her income. The standards of living of the children and the receiving parent are interrelated because they live together. Any money that the receiving parent spends on the household will also benefit the children.

mikedavid00 you might want to get yourself fixed just to spare yourself and any innocent offspring

[geoffrey]

The judgement is crap, it's the court's passion these days to take kids away from dad but still make daddy foot the bill. Why do mothers have no obligation to better themselves and go get jobs?

Obviously, the fathers are responsible, but in situations where they don't even get to see the kids, why should the mother (who really is the one benefitting from the payouts) be allowed the man's raise. I would apply these theories in reverse as well, but I find it hard to believe there are many mom's that have to financially support husbands that have sole custody. Just not the court's style.

If the dad is paying the bills, then he gets to see them whenever he wants. If the mom wants to step up and take responsibility, then she can see them too. I struggle with the logic that the most responsible parent should see the kid the least (not saying guys are more responsible, just saying those that pay are more responsible then those that just leech).

[Renegade]

FYI the custodial parents income is also considered in divorce.

The federal guidelines are built on the principle that both parents should share the same portion of their income with their child as they would if they had continued to live together. In broad terms, the guidelines ask, "what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her children?" and support payments are set accordingly.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute to the costs of raising the children in proportion to his or her income. The standards of living of the children and the receiving parent are interrelated because they live together. Any money that the receiving parent spends on the household will also benefit the children.

You fail to provide a source for your quote above, so it is hard to see the complete context. I understand that the amount specified in the child support tables are supposed to "in principle" factor in that the custodial parent is also supposed to contribute to the support of the child, but as a practical matter, support by the custodial parent is only assumed but not enforced. The custodial parent can spend as much or as little as they choose on their child, whereas the non-custodial parent has no choice in the matter.

If you are familiar with the child support guidelines you will see that in sole-custody situations that there is no provision to include the income of the custodial parent. If you dispute this perhaps you can explain why a support order as per the guidlines is the same regardless if the custodial parent makes $150,000 or $10,000

[Guest Warwick Green]

When my wife and I got separated we negotiated our own child support deal - without the help of lawyers. It was a perecent of my net income. Thus it would go up with my income risng - and down as well if that circumstance arose. It was in place unchanged and challenged for 15 years, until my child reached 21. At that time I agreed to extend it while our daughter remained in college.

[watching&waiting]

I find the whole idea of having to force child support upon husbands and wifes, just too crazy. I have no children of my own but I raised a nephew from age 10 to adulthood, as my own. I never even thought about the costs, but yes they were there and fully taken upon by my wife and I. The childs parents never once gave anything towards his needs. This has only made them behave the same as those who I think believe that they can some how just walk away from the responcibility of being a parent.

I have a neighbour who has two kids and he and his wife just split up. He made over $100,000.00 per year with Ontario Hydro. He has now taken to never accepting overtime etc and so he only gets $88,000.00 dirct salary. He has done everything to make it so his wife gets nothing ( she was a home maker). I used to like the guy but I find that now he is of the mind of either you are for him or against him. I am against him trying to wiggle out of his child support and he does not see that, it is really the kids that suffer. He is just plain mad about it all. To me that is the reason the SC ruled the way they did. While this guy is hiding roughly $30,000.00 per year from the tax man and the courts, he will sooner or later get caught and then watch the fireworks. He is mad now that the lawyers have caught him causing damage to the house, to try to make the value less, and he has ignored judges orders to pay his child support and spousal support on time. It takes 6 months to setup wage asignments. I have had to step in and help out a bit financially. This guy just goes totally blind to anything that does not benefit himself and while he says how much he loves his kids, he lets his hate for his wife get in the way. That is why the SC has ruled as they did, because like this neighbour who was just as normal as you would ever think someone to be, just turns totally crazy when divorce happens.

[Renegade]

When my wife and I got separated we negotiated our own child support deal - without the help of lawyers. It was a perecent of my net income. Thus it would go up with my income risng - and down as well if that circumstance arose. It was in place unchanged and challenged for 15 years, until my child reached 21. At that time I agreed to extend it while our daughter remained in college.

It is always preferable to work out a voluntary arrangement which is equitable to both sides. For many people however even a voluntary arrangement is not equitable because the arrangement is made under threat the arrangements could default to the unfair legislated guidelines.

IMV the child-support amount should not be based upon the income of the spouse, as much as on the needs of the child. A disabled child may have greater needs than a non-disabled child and should thus be entitled to greater support. The support costs should always be shared between the custodial and non-custodial parent.

[jdobbin]

When my wife and I got separated we negotiated our own child support deal - without the help of lawyers. It was a perecent of my net income. Thus it would go up with my income risng - and down as well if that circumstance arose. It was in place unchanged and challenged for 15 years, until my child reached 21. At that time I agreed to extend it while our daughter remained in college.

People often forget that it is the children that this is about. Good for you for never losing sight of that.

There was a reason that the courts got involved in the cases taken to the Supreme Court. It's because the husband and wife couldn't come to a deal on child support.

[Renegade]

I have a neighbour who has two kids and he and his wife just split up. He made over $100,000.00 per year with Ontario Hydro. He has now taken to never accepting overtime etc and so he only gets $88,000.00 dirct salary. He has done everything to make it so his wife gets nothing ( she was a home maker). I used to like the guy but I find that now he is of the mind of either you are for him or against him. I am against him trying to wiggle out of his child support and he does not see that, it is really the kids that suffer. He is just plain mad about it all. To me that is the reason the SC ruled the way they did. While this guy is hiding roughly $30,000.00 per year from the tax man and the courts, he will sooner or later get caught and then watch the fireworks. He is mad now that the lawyers have caught him causing damage to the house, to try to make the value less, and he has ignored judges orders to pay his child support and spousal support on time. It takes 6 months to setup wage asignments. I have had to step in and help out a bit financially. This guy just goes totally blind to anything that does not benefit himself and while he says how much he loves his kids, he lets his hate for his wife get in the way. That is why the SC has ruled as they did, because like this neighbour who was just as normal as you would ever think someone to be, just turns totally crazy when divorce happens.

There is no excuse for any parent to not support their children. I don't know the specifics of the case but it would seem that the father is frustrated by support rules which in his view are unfair and are unilaterally imposed upon him and thus seeks ways to duck those rules. You have not stated it, so how much does he actually pay in child-support? Does the amount he pays actually cover his share of the actual support cost for the child (of course assuming the wife also needs to contribute to the support cost)?

[Guest Warwick Green]

When my wife and I got separated we negotiated our own child support deal - without the help of lawyers. It was a perecent of my net income. Thus it would go up with my income risng - and down as well if that circumstance arose. It was in place unchanged and challenged for 15 years, until my child reached 21. At that time I agreed to extend it while our daughter remained in college.

It is always preferable to work out a voluntary arrangement which is equitable to both sides. For many people however even a voluntary arrangement is not equitable because the arrangement is made under threat the arrangements could default to the unfair legislated guidelines.

IMV the child-support amount should not be based upon the income of the spouse, as much as on the needs of the child. A disabled child may have greater needs than a non-disabled child and should thus be entitled to greater support. The support costs should always be shared between the custodial and non-custodial parent.

I think there has to be a reasonably simple quantifiable mechanism to determine the child support amount. The percentage of my net income agreed upon was determined to be fair by both of us. If special needs had come up later she and I would have sat down and talked about whether additional support was required. Without lawyers you can talk in a cilvilized, not adversarial, atmosphere.

If lawyers had been involved and had it become protracted and I felt I was given the shaft then any other effort to get money out of me would have ended up in court. The way we did it worked well for us and our daughter. But then I recognise that some custodial situations are so poisonous that they can only talk to one another through lawyers - you have to have empathy for people in that situation.

[Renegade]

I think there has to be a reasonably simple quantifiable mechanism to determine the child support amount. The percentage of my net income agreed upon was determined to be fair by both of us. If special needs had come up later she and I would have sat down and talked about whether additional support was required. Without lawyers you can talk in a cilvilized, not adversarial, atmosphere.

If lawyers had been involved and had it become protracted and I felt I was given the shaft then any other effort to get money out of me would have ended up in court. The way we did it worked well for us and our daughter. But then I recognise that some custodial situations are so poisonous that they can only talk to one another through lawyers - you have to have empathy for people in that situation.

Kudos to you and your ex for being mature enough to work out an arrangment which you both agreed was fair and also because you had a open enough relationship, even after the split, that you could discuss and come to resolution on in the face of changing circumstances.

Unfortunately for many couples, the lack of communication and maturity which caused the marital breakdown in the first place are the same issues which preclude an amicable settlement upon a split. I agree with you that lawyers do nothing to heal the rift as each has an obligation to look after the best interest of his own client. This frequently exasperates an already bad situation.

[WillyNilly]

The unfortunate reality is that women 's income still lags behind mens, and its still harder for women to climb the corporate ladder. Men still, for most couples, remain to be the "prinicpal bread winner" in the family.

Womens careers and education are often compromised because of raising children because the children's needs take priority over a career. It is generally the mother who is called at work if something comes up with the kids, its generally the mother who stays home with a sick child.

And most divorced mothers find themselves living a much lower life style after divorce than do fathers.

What is needed is better enforcement of Child Support for dead beat parents.

I was awarded $1850.00 a month in spousal and child support, I told the Judge it was way too much, that neither parent should suffer financially just because we couldnt make it together. He lowered it, at my request to $1500.00. (I had been partially disabled in a work accident while we were married and he walked out because I couldnt work fulltime and he had to start to pull his share of the financial responsibilities.)

He then arranged to get fired by telling off his boss and he was making well over $100,000.0 a year by that time.

He cashed in the kids college fund and kept that money. His mother died and left $5000.00 to each grandchild and he kept that.

He never did pay Child Support, and the court didnt do anything to enforce it. In the end he got away with owing over $200,000.00 and the kids did without everything except very basic needs, and sometimes there wasnt even enough to eat.

He had access to the kids whenever he wanted to see them, which wasnt often until they became teenagers and he didnt have to "babysit" them. He refused to take them for weekends, or for even a day when they were younger.

Its more often about getting back at the wife for some real or imagined injustice. Men often have these irrational rage responses in divorce, even if they were the ones to walk away from their families.

He has done everything to make it so his wife gets nothing

caught him causing damage to the house, to try to make the value less

Been there, done that too.

The children too often become a tool to hurt the other parent.

[Black Dog]

The judgement is crap, it's the court's passion these days to take kids away from dad but still make daddy foot the bill. Why do mothers have no obligation to better themselves and go get jobs?

Why do you automatically assume they don't? Regardless whether its a single income household or a double income houshold pre divorce, the fact remains that removing the husbands inome from the equations means a net decrease in money available to support the family.

If the dad is paying the bills, then he gets to see them whenever he wants. If the mom wants to step up and take responsibility, then she can see them too. I struggle with the logic that the most responsible parent should see the kid the least (not saying guys are more responsible, just saying those that pay are more responsible then those that just leech).

Parental responsibility is not a commodity. Child support and vistitation rights should not be connected.

[Riverwind]

Parental responsibility is not a commodity. Child support and visitation rights should not be connected.

There are way too many mothers who routinely deny court ordered visitation and access rights, however, the courts almost never punishes the mother for such actions. Child support and access is a complete contract - if the mother does not live up to her side of the deal then the father should be automatically freed his obligations as well.

[Renegade]

Parental responsibility is not a commodity. Child support and visitation rights should not be connected.

There are way too many mothers who routinely deny court ordered visitation and access rights, however, the courts almost never punishes the mother for such actions. Child support and access is a complete contract - if the mother does not live up to her side of the deal then the father should be automatically freed his obligations as well.

The support obligation by the parent is to the child not to the mother. I agree with BD. The two issues should be kept separate and denying visitation should not impact support obligations. However, perhaps a parent who denies visitation should have custody revoked as they have proved incapable of living up to the terms of the custody arrangement.

[Riverwind]

However, perhaps a parent who denies visitation should have custody revoked as they have proved incapable of living up to the terms of the custody arrangement.

That would work too - the problem is the system does not punish non-paying parents who do not live up to their side of the deal.

[Black Dog]

There are way too many mothers who routinely deny court ordered visitation and access rights, however, the courts almost never punishes the mother for such actions. Child support and access is a complete contract - if the mother does not live up to her side of the deal then the father should be automatically freed his obligations as well.

I disagree. Failure of one party to live up to their side of the bargain does not change the requirements for financial support.

[Riverwind]

I disagree. Failure of one party to live up to their side of the bargain does not change the requirements for financial support.

I agree that the requirements do not change but when you have a imbalance of power where the complete power of the state comes down hard on one party for failing to live up to the terms of the agreement but the other party can ignore the agreement with impunity.

[theloniusfleabag]

I disagree. Failure of one party to live up to their side of the bargain does not change the requirements for financial support

Indeed, that financial support is ostensibly for the welfare of the child, even if the parent and child chose to move to the booming metropolis of Kipp, AB. I am also in agreement with FTA Lawyer, to a certain degree,

On the other hand, the SCC did not make retroactive orders mandatory...which the Alberta Court of Appeal tried to do. They have left the final say on a retroactive order in the hands of the trial judges and have made it clear that the under-paying spouse's intentions, good or bad behaviour, and potential hardships should be considered when deciding whether to make a retroactive order.

I can't find any fault with the reasoning myself.

and I can certainly see how there must be some flexibility to make a 'judgement call' in some cases. Suppose, for example, a divorce happens because one spouse (lets say 'the wife') was abusive and/or a heavy drinker. After the divorce, perhaps the man becomes happier, more productive at work and gets a promotion/raise? If this person were 'unionized', and the pay raise came automatically, I would say that there might be a difference from such a person who has 'earned it' solely on their own accord.

[Renegade]

And most divorced mothers find themselves living a much lower life style after divorce than do fathers.

This statistic may be interpreted as indicating that mothers did not pull their weight financially during a marriage and were subsidized by the father. Upon dissolution of the marriage when the mothers are forced to contribute more financially, they end up with a lower lifestyle.

A more interesting comparison would be between mothers who are divorced and those single never-married mothers in similar circumstance. by single never-married mothers I mean mothers who chose to be single parents and exclude the father, such that the father was never part of the support equation. I wonder if such a comparison would show that divorced mothers are in fact worse off.

[Black Dog]

I agree that the requirements do not change but when you have a imbalance of power where the complete power of the state comes down hard on one party for failing to live up to the terms of the agreement but the other party can ignore the agreement with impunity.

Be that as it may, why conflate the issues of visitation and support when the real issue is enforcement?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I'm sure glad I did all this before the process became so byzantine. We lived in Ontario - separation was by agreement. You only had to go to court if you could not agree between the two of you. There was no withholding money from my pay - I paid her once a month by bank transfer. No periodic reviews of the agreement - anyway the nature of our deal made that unnecessary. Visitation was flexible - two weekends a month, some time in the summer and at Christmas time. But we could move things around - and did - to meet our own schedules.

The divorce process was a farce. We both had to hire lawyers -- and pay big bucks - to rubber stamp our separation agreement.

Based on my experience - have a decent pre-nup that spells it all out. And I much as it pains me to acknowlge that in some cases lawyers might be needed I would much rather go with med-arb if it's available.