The supreme court rules on ex-spouse

[Renegade]

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

In Ontario, if it is an uncontested divorce you don't need lawyers. You can file the papers yourself. It is reviewed by a judge and as long as the judge is satisified that it meets the legal requirements, you are granted a peliminary judgement for divorce. All you pay are the fees involved.

[Guest Warwick Green]

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

In Ontario, if it is an uncontested divorce you don't need lawyers. You can file the papers yourself. It is reviewed by a judge and as long as the judge is satisified that it meets the legal requirements, you are granted a peliminary judgement for divorce. All you pay are the fees involved.

The divorce was in Quebec and she was still in Ontario. I had to provide evidence of the circumstances of my move to Quebec (and a witness to corroborate it) or the divorce would not have gone through. All this was process. The terms of the divorce were not in dispute.

[Renegade]

In pondering the SCC decision, it would seem that the law is primarily constructed to create uniform and consistant child-support settlements which are are easy to calculate. Under "normal" conditions, only a few factors are considered in deriving the amount for child-support. In most cases the only factors which influence the amount of support are the payor's income, the province, and the number of kids.

There are a multitude of factors which are not considered in the support formula. The variance of these factors can have a huge impact on the percieved fairness of the child-support payment. Consider the following scenarios:

1. Let's say the payor parent wins a huge sum in a lottery. Does this influence the child-support payment? No it does not, ecause a lottery win is not considered income! Let's say the payee wins a huge sum in a lottery. Does this influence the child-support payment? No it does not. The child-support payment isn't influenced by the payee's income. Even if the payee earned 10X what the payor does, the payor's child support amount is the same. (Unless it causes "undue hardship" to the payor)

2. Compare two payees who live in different parts of the same province, say Ontario. One lives in Toronto, the other in small town Ontario. The one in Toronto faces relatively high costs for accomodation and services. The one in small town Ontario does not. Is there a difference in child-support paymetns assuming other conditions are the same. No, there is no provision in law for that.

3. What about changing family circumstances? Let's say a mother get's $2000/month in child support for one child. Post divorce she bears additional children from a very-low income father. She gets no support for the additional children, and her own income is also low. Is there any assurance that the $2000/month that the first father pays actually goes to supporting the standard of the original child he fathered? Not a chance! The original payor payment is used to support the mother and the whole brood, regardless of the wishes of the payor.

I'm sure there are many more circumstances I could enumerate, but in general it is a safe assumption that where the payee is not fair-minded and only looking out for its own self-interest, the payor is bound to be screwed.

[RB]

In defence of women:

On earning

Women usually forgo their potential earning power to be a stay at home mom. In the meantime their spouses enabled by their women, continue a climb to status and increase their earning power. This is called sacrifice from women, the romantic souls they are, to make these brave decisions to support their mates in hopes that their happy endings is real.

The other point is cheeky because it sounds like some women do marry for a particular lifestyle, and after the divorce, and now with additions as kids it is expected that reasonable lifestyle is maintained because the expectation was that the lady will glow in "future" wealth. But, it is real.

Next there is at least a 5 year difference in ages between the spouses, and the males being the older of the two use this advantage to keep women in a subordinate position. I believe there is much less freedom to continue probably with education to stay up-to-date with employable skills.

end

Next Issue

Fathers with custody are much better off financially than the poverty stricken mother with custody. Over 40% of custodial mothers in poverty. Single mothers who have never married did not sacrifice to make a male live better off for 20 years and hence do not go through the pains of separation, feelings of failing and loss.

Next

I don't know why women idealise the males that much only ruin their lives in the end. They are to be blame, because women can certainly control their own destiny...financially. They need to operate independent of men, and have a career, and education, something to fall back if 50% of marriages are going to end in a divorce. Beats me why they have to fight for an extra 50$ per month - I guess misery do love company.

Because of this reason I am incline to say men are punished many times (it is tragic) over in the custody battles and support payments.

[Renegade]

Women usually forgo their potential earning power to be a stay at home mom. In the meantime their spouses enabled by their women, continue a climb to status and increase their earning power. This is called sacrifice from women, the romantic souls they are, to make these brave decisions to support their mates in hopes that their happy endings is real.

You seem to imply that it is the male partner who forces the woman to stay at home and be a mom, while they continue their career ascent. In most cases this is not true. Many times, it is very much the desire of the woman to stay home and bring up the kids and forgo the career benefits. They do this because they make choices of what are priorities in their lives. There are many couples where the woman decided that her career was equally important, and thus was unwilling to stay home and be a full-time child raiser. Ultimately woman have considerable control in their choices and must also ultmately also bear the responsibilty of diminished earnings.

I will agree that where a couple has jointly decided to forgo the career advancement of one spouse in order to raise children, that economic burden should be equally shared among both spouses. This equalization is called spousal support and is independant of child-support which is the issue in this thread.

The other point is cheeky because it sounds like some women do marry for a particular lifestyle, and after the divorce, and now with additions as kids it is expected that reasonable lifestyle is maintained because the expectation was that the lady will glow in "future" wealth. But, it is real.

It is an interesting question on whether a spouse is entitled to the same lifestyle after marriage as during marriage. My answer would be no. A spouse who's lifestyle is better simply because it is subsidized by the earning power of the other spouse, is not "entitled" to it. It is simply a byproduct of the marriage. Once the marriage ends, there is no reason one spouse should expect the other to subsidize the other's lifestyle.

Kids do change the dynamic, however, since it is difficult to separate the lifestyle of the custodial parent from that of the kids. Because of this, the non-custodial parent (mostly fathers) are unfairly penalized because they are forced to support not only the lifestyle of the kids, but of the ex-spouse as well.

In my view, what is called for is greater accountability to ensure that child-support payments are specificly destined to cover the child's expenses.

Next there is at least a 5 year difference in ages between the spouses, and the males being the older of the two use this advantage to keep women in a subordinate position. I believe there is much less freedom to continue probably with education to stay up-to-date with employable skills.

Frankly I don't see age as being much of a factor in dominance in adult relationships. ("Listen to me because I'm older"). The age discrepancy is probably a factor which explains why men are more likely to be economically better off than their spouse, as they have had 5 more years to develop their career.

Fathers with custody are much better off financially than the poverty stricken mother with custody. Over 40% of custodial mothers in poverty. Single mothers who have never married did not sacrifice to make a male live better off for 20 years and hence do not go through the pains of separation, feelings of failing and loss.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. For many reasons men earn more, so it would be expected that fathers with custody are better off financially than mothers with custody. One can read this statistic as saying that single fathers are better providers for their kids than are single mothers. Perhaps courts should award custody based upon which parent is a better provider.

You seem to assume that custodial mothers are economically worse off simply because they sacrificed their career for 20 years. There are many other explainations:

1. They may have had a less lucrative career (or no career) from the very start. In this case they would be economically worse off regardless of if they were married or not.

2. They may have wanted and pushed for the choice to stay home. For many woman the drive to stay home and nurture is strong (more so than for men), so many willingly want to persue this choice over an economically beneficial career.

3. Older men, younger women. The older spouse has more experience and time to develop a career.

Are single never married custodial mothers better off financially than single never married custodial fathers?

I don't know why women idealise the males that much only ruin their lives in the end. They are to be blame, because women can certainly control their own destiny...financially. They need to operate independent of men, and have a career, and education, something to fall back if 50% of marriages are going to end in a divorce. Beats me why they have to fight for an extra 50$ per month - I guess misery do love company.

Indeed, the points I was making above is that women can control their own destiny, and when they make poor choices they indeed should accept the blame. Society lets them off the hook somewhat by economically penalizing men through excessive child-support payments to subsidize some of the choices women themselves have made.

Because of this reason I am incline to say men are punished many times (it is tragic) over in the custody battles and support payments.

Exactly, yet men are usually painted as the villans in these battles.

[BubberMiley]

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?

Actually the courts have been giving equal "custody" to both parents for several years now, unless one parent is clearly unfit.

[geoffrey]

Put it this way. There is only so much you can spend on a kid. If the dad is making say $200k a year and transfering $3k a month to the ex-wife, do you really think she's spending that $3k on the kid? Let's cap it at $500 or $600 a month, otherwise it's a transfer payment between equally responsible parties.

If the mom is spending $3k a month on the kid, then we're going to have a generation of spoiled little idiots running around as a result of this policy. I didn't make $3k a month until recently, and that was paying for somewhere to sleep and eat. I can't imagine a 6 or even 15 year old's need for that amount of moola.

In actual fact, according to the fed at this address: http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/tab...rta_150000.html

A $200,000 year dad with one kid is giving the wife $1735, two kids, it's $2756. Seriously, kids don't need that much. I come from a well off family and my parents never spent nearly that. If the mom made an equal amount, that kid SHOULD be getting nearly $4000 a month. What the hell? If she makes half or even a quarter, we have $3000 or $2500 ish a month?

It's not about kids, it's about transfering money from daddy to mommy. After the divorce, I don't think the husband has any more oligation to the wife than the wife does to the husband. It's done, it's over. Pay a few hundred for the kid, let him/her get some new clothes, new shoes for school. It seems to me kids of divorces have it way better financially as individuals.

And Bubber, if both parents have equal custody, why do we need support anyways? Their obligations are equal, they are equal in parenting they should be equal in footing the bill.

[Renegade]

Actually the courts have been giving equal "custody" to both parents for several years now, unless one parent is clearly unfit.

And Bubber, if both parents have equal custody, why do we need support anyways? Their obligations are equal, they are equal in parenting they should be equal in footing the bill.

There is a distinction between phsysical custody and legal custody. Legal joint custody means that both parents make joint decisions regarding the child in question. Phsysical custody means the portion of time the child will reside with that parent. Courts have been giving more legal joint custody to both parents, however this is not true of physical custody. In most cases the bias is toward the mother and she will get sole physical custody (ie child resides with the mother more than 60% of the time).

Child support is determined by physical custody not legal custody. If the mother has sole physical custody then the father is expected to pay the full amount according to the tables. The amount isn't affected if the father has the child 39% of the time or 0% of the time.

[Drea]

It's not about kids, it's about transfering money from daddy to mommy. After the divorce, I don't think the husband has any more oligation to the wife than the wife does to the husband. It's done, it's over. Pay a few hundred for the kid, let him/her get some new clothes, new shoes for school.

What about the roof over their little kidlet heads? What about putting money away for post secondary education? What about extra cirricular activities, sports and the like?

Kids need more than new shoes.

It seems to me kids of divorces have it way better financially as individuals.

Seriously? Name me one instance where a kid is better off financially after one parent's income is deleted from the equation and replaced with "a few hundred bucks".

It is a fact (no, I don't have time to look it up!) that kids whose parents have split up end up with a lower standard of living than they had before the breakup.

Daddy still makes 100 grand a year. What does Mommy make? Hmmmm. Even if Daddy makes 60 grand a year and Mommy makes 40 grand a year (my situation) and if Daddy leaves he takes 60 grand away and replaces it with $6,000 per year (based on $500/mo support payments). See what I mean?

[watching&waiting]

The fact that dad and mom split is just one small thing in the matter of this. The Children can never be divorced from either parent, and the law backs that up. So if one spouse or the other has a lifestyle greater then the other, they deserve to have that same lifestyle until they reach the age of majority. We all too often forget it is about the kids and has nothing really to do with what the parents think is fair.

If mommy is a multi-millionaire and daddy digs ditches, then the kids deserve the lifestyle of the richer parent. If the kids live with dad, then there will be a large monthly check from mom. if it was the other way around it still would be the same ruling.

So yes there is truly a limit in what dads and moms should be responcible to pay, but that limit shoulkd be to set the lowest value. The other end is wide open, as it should be.

[Renegade]

Seriously? Name me one instance where a kid is better off financially after one parent's income is deleted from the equation and replaced with "a few hundred bucks".

It is a fact (no, I don't have time to look it up!) that kids whose parents have split up end up with a lower standard of living than they had before the breakup.

Daddy still makes 100 grand a year. What does Mommy make? Hmmmm. Even if Daddy makes 60 grand a year and Mommy makes 40 grand a year (my situation) and if Daddy leaves he takes 60 grand away and replaces it with $6,000 per year (based on $500/mo support payments). See what I mean?

Depends, if the spouses remarry, the child can have a much better lifestyle, because the lost family income is replaced.

[Renegade]

The fact that dad and mom split is just one small thing in the matter of this. The Children can never be divorced from either parent, and the law backs that up. So if one spouse or the other has a lifestyle greater then the other, they deserve to have that same lifestyle until they reach the age of majority. We all too often forget it is about the kids and has nothing really to do with what the parents think is fair.

I guess it comes to what do we as parents think we owe our kids. When the spouses are married there is no minimium standard that the govenment enforces on what lifestyle they should provide the kids (beyond the bare food and shelter). I don't agree that kids are "entitled" to a lifestyle beyond a minimium standard. I agree as parents you have a set of obligations to provide for your kids. In my view those obligations should be better spelled out both for parents who are married and those apart. Those obligations should be to provide food, shelter, clothing, education, and other essential. They shouldn't include discretionary expenses such as a tropical vacation every year or a new car when the child is 16. Whether a parent funds those discretionary expenses should be up to the parent.

If mommy is a multi-millionaire and daddy digs ditches, then the kids deserve the lifestyle of the richer parent. If the kids live with dad, then there will be a large monthly check from mom. if it was the other way around it still would be the same ruling.

As I've pointed out before, it doesn't depend upon if the mommy is a multi-millionaire, it depends upon what she earns. Said another way, child-support payments depend upon income not wealth. Yes I agree, if the kids lived with dad and the mom earned the income, the mom would be the one paying, however the practical matter is that courts only award the father sole physical custody in 11% of the cases. So what looks good on paper, doesn't pan out in reality unless courts and society adjusts its bias.

So yes there is truly a limit in what dads and moms should be responcible to pay, but that limit shoulkd be to set the lowest value. The other end is wide open, as it should be.

I would agree there should be a minimium value. That would imply that despite the income or wealth of the non-custodial parent there should be an amount they are obligated to pay. I disagree with you that there should be no maximium. After a point there is no correlation between how much you spend on a child and how that child turns out. I would even argue that there is a negative correlation, in that many kids who are over-indulged turn out to be spoilt brats. Even the courts recognize that there needs to be a limit in assigning child support by formula. That is why the guidelines do not apply for incomes over $150,000.

[BHS]

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.

I love picking nits. I didn't see a reply to this post, so I'm posting one now.

The $100,000.00 in question was a court-ordered retroactive payment for child support above and beyond that which was already being paid. What wasn't given was the period of time to which this retroactive payment applied. The article only mentions retroactive payments being limited to a three-year period by the Supreme Court's decision. I'm going to guess that the period of retroactivity for this particular case was a similar length of time.

$100,000.00 over three years means missed monthly payments of $2777.78 above and beyond established child support payments. That is a sizeable increase in monthly payments, and it leads me to suspect that the father's income (and commensurate montly support payment obligations) were already quite high.

In that light, I find it hard to believe that junior was "doing without" in any meaningful sense, and so I have to respectfully disagree with the sentiment expressed in your last sentence.

(I know this doesn't apply to you but it reminds me of people who complained about Bush's tax cuts by noting that the wealthiest payers would be receiving credit equivalent to the price of a new Lexus. Completely lacking from these complaints, in a very logically disconnected way, was the acknowledgement that the price of a new Lexus made up only a small fraction of what the wealthiest taxpayers shell out every year in taxes. Everything is relative.)

[RB]

well we should take note that a man's salary will keep increasing after the divorce.

however the woman's household income (especially since some of you believe it is the woman's choice to be maids of the house) is decreased by 50% and their poverty rates rises from 16% to 43% after the divorce.

but i agree that the court system is bias towards men.

it empowers women to fight for support payments, and other material wealth including not paying support payments herself.

and it presumes that men main concern in custody is to save their wealth and custody is more about money for men.

but also i wanted to point out that men are culturalize to have the women take care of the children. even when the custody is given to the mother, men seem only to have a relation with the child oppose to nurturing

i have simple logic with this divorce issue for women, if you could not financially support a child by yourself (even when you blinded by love married to the a fairytale) - you are not ready for children. next i say to women you should never be dependent on men for finances otherwise you know you are not doing well.

men should exist only to entertain us women.

[Charles Anthony]

i have simple logic with this divorce issue for women, if you could not financially support a child by yourself (even when you blinded by love married to the a fairytale) - you are not ready for children. next i say to women you should never be dependent on men for finances otherwise you know you are not doing well.

I wonder what would qualify as a "happily married couple" would be in your opinion.

men should exist only to entertain us women.

Uh.... be explicit. Men are dullards.

Also, men hate it when women are cryptic with their demands -- it leaves to much opportunity for women to say: "That is not what I meant!" after the fact.

[RB]

Charles Anthony Posted Yesterday, 07:17 PM

RB @ Aug 5 2006, 06:27 PM)

i have simple logic with this divorce issue for women, if you could not financially support a child by yourself (even when you blinded by love married to the a fairytale) - you are not ready for children. next i say to women you should never be dependent on men for finances otherwise you know you are not doing well

I wonder what would qualify as a "happily married couple" would be in your opinion.

The word "marriage" alone connotes false expectations, that people are blissful and happy. Sorry, to let you know also that LOVE is the obsessive delusion that is cured by marriage.

Look, I mean if you say to someone "I am married" the imagery carried of being married amounts to: promises, morals, rights of partners, legal agreements, obligation to one person, children, customs, duties, limits, off-limits, hands-off, curtailed conversations, invisible boundaries, questions, are you happy?, pause, and disillusion. What I mean is since greater than 1/2 of those who marry is divorcing it tells me that marriage is not a happy state but indeed a stressful life that is emotionally charged.

Happiness is a proverbial good fortune, and in marriage it is illusive.

Folks that are independent and mature and entering into marriage tend to have more lasting relationship, and the noticeable trend is that that maturity age is somewhere in the thirties to start. Both of the partners have a career and are financially secure. Means when the women are less attractive and appealing to the eye and the males ditch them, they can cope with the related child care burdens. It also now occurred to me that (whereas money is the prime motivator to keep women engaged in even a loveless relation) perhaps the female abundance of money might not be enough to keep the males secure in the marriage and now I can pointly borrow the phase from the above post "Men are dullards" and reinforce the shallowness of their thinking.

I attribute the failure to marriage to a reason that people are not prepared to invest their energies, money and time into understanding each other. I mean look at how much time is spent making arrangements for the wedding day, the big preparation, the finance involve, the public announcement, the anticipation, a wonder and this event is only one day. People deciding to get married should allot the same amounts of energy they put into the big preparation of the celebration of that ONE big day, ONE big night, but also have it translate into their entire lifetime.

How about celebration all your life, contented with the little you have and simply feeling free, that is happiness in my mind.

[Drea]

I agree with RB that a woman should first look after their career before running off and getting married in the "rush" of first love.

All women should be financially responsible for themselves, and not expect a man to "save" them from career/financial responsibilities.

And no, having a children does not "let women off the hook" from these responsibilites. Its 2006, not 1956 and many women need to wake up and realize this.

[Charles Anthony]

Uh... I am still want to know explicity how men should entertain women.

[geoffrey]

$100,000.00 over three years means missed monthly payments of $2777.78 above and beyond established child support payments. That is a sizeable increase in monthly payments, and it leads me to suspect that the father's income (and commensurate montly support payment obligations) were already quite high.

What kid requires $2777.78 in monthly child support??!?!

I don't give a damn about the numbers, common sense will eventually need to prevail. What kid honestly requires that much a month in money? I was checking with my 'rents today to get an estimate on how much they spent on me, since I have no kids of my own I don't know. They guessed total expenses, about $500-600 a month, and I come from a well off family. The parents should support basic needs, food, water, clothes. Basic needs.

Daddy shouldn't have to buy a car or anything like that. Get the kid to get off their lazy ass and buy one themselves.

$2777.78 a month sounds like every kid deserves that BMW, $500 designer jeans and whatever they want with never working a day in their lives.

The issue at hand is that with 50% of kids being exposed to this now-a-days, are we raising a generation of spoiled brats that get everything and have never worked? What will happen when they hit the real world and daddy's $2778.78 cheque stops coming in the mail? I truly believe the divorce rewards system in Canada is creating a generation of lazy, spoiled idiot children.

[RB]

Uh... I am still want to know explicitly how men should entertain women.

Firstly there is no agenda, nor emotional, nor emasculating loss in how to entertain women. This is just simply some deconstruction of the male position.

Now, I would outright lie if I say it is impossible to underrate men. They are limitless in their accomplishments and show strength in tasks that they set off to accomplish and complete.

So, we can all agree that there is a likely expectation that men can do as much as women if not better and is minuscule really. I mean women have been falling at men's beck and call in their entirety.

So, I propose that men become fragile and submission to entertain us ladies. We certainly would like to see the power relation manifested in abandonment of being male and tilted in favor of the women.

So for men, volunteer work is encouraged as a third shift, after you finished looking after the children of course, while going to work (you can also stay at home by choice after we have decided as partners that you should not work).

Whether you decided on staying at home full time or not, you will make the time to greet us at the door (happy demeanour please), cook, indoor cleaning, including the washrooms - make rules as you go along for example whether to have the toilet seat up or down, and also reinforce these rules, do the laundry, shopping, chauffeur the children to baseball, hockey, dance lessons, soccer, attend parent night at school, shuffle, shuffling etc.

You will need be very fit, requirement of the day is being sexy, attractive, ripples in the stomach, develop some breast, some defined muscles, persona to match, apply make-up to look pretty, and hairless otherwise you don't get introduced to my buddies. Yes, and get some pretty clothes while you are at it.

Note: you cannot criticise the women if they develop a bigger stomach, become overweight from sitting about doing nothing or for just being lazy and being themselves, even when they have less regard for their hair and appearance - you will worship them regardless.

The TV remote belongs to the lady, and you will serve drinks immediately if asked "honey get me a beer", and give in to each demand.

Fridays and Saturdays is the lady free time, it is time to go out for a drink with the guys, so you have to take care of the kids. And oh, don't wait up usually we sit around goofing and having fun 'till early morning.

Because you become so fatigue with work, house chores, child issues and more work you are encourage to visit your doctor constantly to unload and check up - we don't wish you to die on us, we have invested too much in this relationship.

In return the lady will tell you daily that you are loved.

We understand no one is perfect and so if chores remain unfinished you can be forgiven. We also understand about the PMS days men can have, and good news the ladies are more likely to say yes rather than no. We will listen to all your nagging and complains and we can sympathise, be contented, you will get a day off once a month.

Best of all, because the ladies are no longer tired or worn out any longer, sex sounds appealing...everyday. We will actually initiate it.

Did I get most of it in? You get the picture.

[FTA Lawyer]

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.

I love picking nits. I didn't see a reply to this post, so I'm posting one now.

The $100,000.00 in question was a court-ordered retroactive payment for child support above and beyond that which was already being paid. What wasn't given was the period of time to which this retroactive payment applied. The article only mentions retroactive payments being limited to a three-year period by the Supreme Court's decision. I'm going to guess that the period of retroactivity for this particular case was a similar length of time.

$100,000.00 over three years means missed monthly payments of $2777.78 above and beyond established child support payments. That is a sizeable increase in monthly payments, and it leads me to suspect that the father's income (and commensurate montly support payment obligations) were already quite high.

In that light, I find it hard to believe that junior was "doing without" in any meaningful sense, and so I have to respectfully disagree with the sentiment expressed in your last sentence.

(I know this doesn't apply to you but it reminds me of people who complained about Bush's tax cuts by noting that the wealthiest payers would be receiving credit equivalent to the price of a new Lexus. Completely lacking from these complaints, in a very logically disconnected way, was the acknowledgement that the price of a new Lexus made up only a small fraction of what the wealthiest taxpayers shell out every year in taxes. Everything is relative.)

Well, I'm not sure that you are picking nits...your point is well-taken. My sentence did sound like I was painting a picture of a kid picking through the dumpster for food while dad was living large.

I appreciate that we are sometimes talking about a kid being more spoiled with increased support as opposed to less impoverished.

The point remains the same however. When a family splits, the child should not be punished. If the child would have had the benefit of his mom or dad's high-power income (with periodic raises) and would have been able to go to private school, own a Mercedes at 16, have a personal assistant and go skiing in Aspen every year, then they shouldn't have to do without that standard of living because mom and dad can't get along anymore.

The point is, someone in the family is going to benefit from the income and as a society we are saying that the non-custodial parent ought not get that benefit and the children be denied it (even though they don't NEED such a standard of living).

Children are a life-long obligation irrespective of your marital status...and you are responsible to allow your children to benefit from your success and position in life...even if they are not living with you.

Can the payee parent hoard the money for themselves? Yes. And there really is no way to get around the fact that some will do this. But by and large parents look out for their kids and most will cut back on their personal luxuries (and indeed basic necessitites) to provide the extras for their kids as opposed to the other way around.

Its far from a perfect system, but anytime you need a court or government to be a babysitter because you can't be reasonable and respectful adults your situation in your glass house is so far from perfect that you really shouldn't be casting stones.

Bottom line...making payor parents increase child support as their disposible income increases seems like perfectly logical reasoning to me.

FTA

[Riverwind]

The point remains the same however. When a family splits, the child should not be punished. If the child would have had the benefit of his mom or dad's high-power income (with periodic raises) and would have been able to go to private school, own a Mercedes at 16, have a personal assistant and go skiing in Aspen every year, then they shouldn't have to do without that standard of living because mom and dad can't get along anymore.

My kids won't be getting a Mercedes at 16 even if I could afford it. Married parents have a right to limit the access their kids have to luxuries - why shouldn't divorced parents?

[FTA Lawyer]

The point remains the same however. When a family splits, the child should not be punished. If the child would have had the benefit of his mom or dad's high-power income (with periodic raises) and would have been able to go to private school, own a Mercedes at 16, have a personal assistant and go skiing in Aspen every year, then they shouldn't have to do without that standard of living because mom and dad can't get along anymore.

My kids won't be getting a Mercedes at 16 even if I could afford it. Married parents have a right to limit the access their kids have to luxuries - why shouldn't divorced parents?

I can't really answer you on that one...other than to say that the Fed. Child Support Guidelines are supposed to have a statistical foundation which loosely represents the average amount of money spent on kids by parents who make the specified income.

Some parents making 200K will spend more on their kids, some will spend less, but the guideline amount in theory will make each of the divorced couple responsible for their share of what the average parents making 200K would spend.

I guess if I say my kids have to buy their own clothes with money they earn I can't stop my wife from buying them stuff when I'm at work and they go shopping...even though we're married. If we were divorced, it wouldn't change a whole lot...I'd pay the support and I could state my view on what it should be spent on and she could take or ignore my opinion as she saw fit.

I recognize this is one of the biggest issues for payors of child support...no control whatsoever over how the money is spent. Unfortunately, we haven't come up with a better system because if strings could be attached, many bitter payors would do so unreasonably in order to punish their ex-spouses...and that would be just as unfair if not worse than forcing people to pay child support and not get to determine where it goes.

Anyone with a better idea?

FTA

[Riverwind]

I recognize this is one of the biggest issues for payors of child support...no control whatsoever over how the money is spent. Unfortunately, we haven't come up with a better system because if strings could be attached, many bitter payors would do so unreasonably in order to punish their ex-spouses...and that would be just as unfair if not worse than forcing people to pay child support and not get to determine where it goes.

I agree that any law will be unfair in circumstances where one or both parties are out to punish each other. However, there a few improvements that are desperately needed:

1) The courts need to be as harsh with deadbeat moms who deny access to children as deadbeat dads. I understand the argument that support payments should not be directly linked to access but the courts have to send the message that denying access to a parent who wants to be part of a child's life is as serious as refusing to contribute financially.

2) The terms that allow a single child to collect child support from multiple fathers/step fathers must be ended. The biological should be the only father that is responsible unless the step father explicitly adopts the child - at that point the biological father should be off the hook.

3) The court should take into account the money that a paying spouse contributes directly to the children's care. For example, if a parent has custody of the kids every weekend and is paying 100% of their costs during that time then that contribution should be taken into account when calculating child support.

[Renegade]

Children are a life-long obligation irrespective of your marital status...and you are responsible to allow your children to benefit from your success and position in life...even if they are not living with you.

But by and large parents look out for their kids and most will cut back on their personal luxuries (and indeed basic necessitites) to provide the extras for their kids as opposed to the other way around.

It would seem the life-long obligation of which you speak does very much depend upon your marital status (at least in law). There is no law which obliges you to have your children benefit from your success and position in life while you are married, so why should there be such a legal obligation when you are no longer married.

As you have stated, most parents look out for their kids, and provide for them and even make sacrifices to provide extras for them. Why should the law presume that you would not provide those extras when no longer married? In effect the law has designated the parent who has physical access to be the proxy through which all benefits must be directed. I think this is the situation most payor parents object to.