The supreme court rules on ex-spouse

[Renegade]

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.

RW, all good suggestions. To that I would add that the payor should have some control to where support payments are directed. For example, the payor should be able to contribute to an RESP on behalf of that child and get credit for that contribution in lieu of a child support payment.

[geoffrey]

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?

That's essientially what I spoke about earlier. I don't think any reasonable parent buys a kid a Mercedes at 16, yet many kids almost should be getting them with the amount of payouts they are receiving.

The bigger question, are the kids getting the money or is it subsidizing mom and her new lover's vacation/cottage/boat/retirement, ect. ect.? I'll bet in many cases, the kid sees less than half. Honestly, a kid can't spend $2k every single month. Maybe kids of an understanding age, say 14, should be aware of how much mom gets from dad so that they hold the parent to account for 'their' money.

[Renegade]

Anyone with a better idea?

FTA

How about we just set a maximium amount which is reasonable for child support? Anything above the maximium is at the discretion of the payor.

[Charles Anthony]

I question the motives of this law.

It is completely ridiculous to both say that the welfare of the child's lifestyle is of concern AND to have no accountability of how the recipient spends the money. This law is a smoke-screen for divorced couples who use their children as shields behind which they hide their own personal greedy lifestyle.

Anyone with a better idea?

How about we just set a maximium amount which is reasonable for child support? Anything above the maximium is at the discretion of the payor.

I agree.

1) Cancel it entirely and designate a fixed amount for every child of divorced parents in Canada. Non-custodial parents will not be obligated to pay more than the designated minimum amount.

2) As suggested here:

RW, all good suggestions. To that I would add that the payor should have some control to where support payments are directed. For example, the payor should be able to contribute to an RESP on behalf of that child and get credit for that contribution in lieu of a child support payment.

and here:

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.

The spending of the money should be accounted. The custodial parent should be required to demonstrate their grocery, clothing, recreation, education, etc. bills on a periodic basis and present a budget. For example, at the end of every year, the non-custodial parent has the right to demand an audit.

3) I think it is a good idea to link child support with visitation. For example, if the divorce requires that $1000 is paid every month and the non-custodial parent sees the child every week, the custodial parent gets paid $250 at every visit. What would be wrong with that?

---

I have a general question: what happens if the non-custodial parent goes bankrupt? or loses a job?

What are the obligations towards child-support?

[Renegade]

I have a general question: what happens if the non-custodial parent goes bankrupt? or loses a job?

What are the obligations towards child-support?

As the law stands today, the payor would have to go to court and petition the court for an adjustment to the support order. If they no longer had any income, they court would revise the judgement to order no support payment.

Given the cost and tedium involved, what is more likely to happen is that the payor would simply stop paying and wait for the payee to take him to court. Needless to say, once they get to court, the child-support order will be adjusted anyway.

[Live From China]

I am wading into this issue a bit late so I apologize if I am not maintaining "the flow."

No child should be getting an additional $3000 per month in support payments. Of course, I am assuming adequate support to start with. I can see this money being put aside for college or university, but with one strong caveat: it is for that purpose and that purpose alone. It would have to be placed in a specially administered fund only to be accessed when the child enters university. Should the child decide not to go to university, then it goes back to the parent who made the payments. It is not for the child to buy cars, homes, vacations, etc.

[Renegade]

No child should be getting an additional $3000 per month in support payments. Of course, I am assuming adequate support to start with. I can see this money being put aside for college or university, but with one strong caveat: it is for that purpose and that purpose alone. It would have to be placed in a specially administered fund only to be accessed when the child enters university. Should the child decide not to go to university, then it goes back to the parent who made the payments. It is not for the child to buy cars, homes, vacations, etc.

Such a fund already exsit in Canada. It's an RESP. Unfortunately currently the payor parent has no say that the money they pay is directed toward an RESP at all. In fact it is perfectly legal for the payee parent to use the money on a vacation for themselves, and even not include the child.

[Live From China]

Of course, an RESP would be unacceptable in this circumstance (someone doling out $3K per month). That's why I thought a specially administered fund of some kind would be ideal. That way, both the payor and payee could not touch it. Of course, we could even kick up the accountability rate a notch or two. The appointed administrator pays the tuition, the books, the residence fees, etc. and the child (now an adult) doesn't touch any of that money. Of course, the child gets a monthly salary and s/he better not come back after two weeks of the month and say,"Oops, I accidentally went to Aspen to go skiing for two weeks. All my money for January is gone!" Administrator: "I guess you're going to lose some weight this month!" Or, "Hope you have a warm sleeping bag!"

As far as maintaining a lifestyle goes, I don't think any kid has the right to Christmas holidays in Hawaii, a BMW Roadster, etc. just because s/he had these things while the parents were together. In reality, these are privileges not rights or essentials.

[geoffrey]

I am wading into this issue a bit late so I apologize if I am not maintaining "the flow."

No child should be getting an additional $3000 per month in support payments. Of course, I am assuming adequate support to start with. I can see this money being put aside for college or university, but with one strong caveat: it is for that purpose and that purpose alone. It would have to be placed in a specially administered fund only to be accessed when the child enters university. Should the child decide not to go to university, then it goes back to the parent who made the payments. It is not for the child to buy cars, homes, vacations, etc.

Why can't kids pay for their own darned school anymore? $3000 a month from say age 10 until 18 at 8% interest is approximately $400,000 at 18. Even half of that, $1500 a month, is ~$200k. Seriously people, you can pay for university by working your ass off part/full time during school and 2 jobs in the summers. It's the reality of life. I know hiring recent grads, those that worked for their school (from the looks of the resume) definitely get shortlisted before any kid that never worked.

Please don't tell me you need $100k a year to go to university, because I'll call bullshit and point out again, is our divorce system creating spoiled brats who will damage our society greatly when they hit the real world?

[Live From China]

Actually, geoffrey, I agree with you.

I was more interested in making the point that IF a parent is going to have to pay another parent an extra $3000 in so-called child support (which is utterly ridiculous but it was mentioned in this thread) then it simply shouldn't be going into the custodial parent's bank account. There is just too much chance for abuse not to mention that no child needs this amount of money anyway.

As I said before, children do not have a right to ski trips, BMW's, etc., even if their parents are millionaires. And just because they had these luxuries before a marriage broke up doesn't mean they have a right to them afterward. They are privileges! Child support is for food, clothing, shelter and the like.

An asside here: I am noticing that North American children and young adults seem utterly obsessed with obtaining things and money; in short, they are becoming greedier and "grabbier" than in the past. I find this utterly discouraging and pathetic.

[geoffrey]

An asside here: I am noticing that North American children and young adults seem utterly obsessed with obtaining things and money; in short, they are becoming greedier and "grabbier" than in the past. I find this utterly discouraging and pathetic.

I tend to agree, all on the parent's chequebook.

Maybe kids aren't getting greedier, maybe parents are forgetting how to say no.

[Drea]

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.

Yes! Deny access and the child support payments stop. Period. My brother has not seen his daughter in 3 years... he doesn't even know where his ex and daughter live, he simply sends his cheques to the Ministry and they forward them to her. Now he is fighting for full custody. The mother can go to hell.

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.

Mothers can collect from more than one father??? Pffft. Ridiculous.

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.

Yes it should be calculated daily -- $300 per month works out to $10 per day. Therefore if he has the child for 6 days out of the month, his payment goes down to $240 for that given month. Of course, the dad who spends $300 on his child on their weekend together could then say he doesn't have to pay that month. I don't think that would work.

Also, the mother won't want to lose $60 so she will be more likely to deny access. In her little mind if she keeps the child she gets to keep $60, if Dad gets the child she loses $60. I don't think that would work either.

If support payments are exceedingly high (much more than the child's month-to-month expenses) then half of it should go into savings.

[Riverwind]

Yes it should be calculated daily -- $300 per month works out to $10 per day. Therefore if he has the child for 6 days out of the month, his payment goes down to $240 for that given month. Of course, the dad who spends $300 on his child on their weekend together could then say he doesn't have to pay that month. I don't think that would work.

The system right now makes no distinction between a higher income spouse with no custody and a higher income spouse with 50-50 custody. The higher income spouse has to pay exactly the same amount of child support even though the higher income spouse also pays 50% of the child rearing expenses directly. This situation is unfair. I can see the argument that taking the kids to dinner and the movies on the weekend should not be counted as 'child rearing expenses' for the purposes of calculating support.

[Drea]

The system right now makes no distinction between a higher income spouse with no custody and a higher income spouse with 50-50 custody. The higher income spouse has to pay exactly the same amount of child support even though the higher income spouse also pays 50% of the child rearing expenses directly. This situation is unfair. I can see the argument that taking the kids to dinner and the movies on the weekend should not be counted as 'child rearing expenses' for the purposes of calculating support.

for those who have a 50-50 custody arragement, sure. But these are rare. The only one I know about is the next door neighbour's 13 yo son -- he spends one week with Mom and the next week with Dad. Poor kid, never knows whether he's comin' or goin'. He's been kicked out of two schools and has nowhere to go come September. Could this be due to the nutty living arrangements? I think it could be. How can a child grow up properly with rules etc being changed on a weekly basis? I don't believe 50-50 custody works. That being said, I am truly an advocate for father's rights and believe that too many children are being denied their father's love. Money will never replace actually spending time with the child.

[Charles Anthony]

for those who have a 50-50 custody arragement, sure. But these are rare. The only one I know about is the next door neighbour's

How many people do you know in Canada?

How many divorced couples with kids in 50-50 custody arrangements do you know in Canada?

Could this be due to the nutty living arrangements?

That is not the only possibility. There are others. Here is one possibility: the child is exceedingly unhappy that his parents are split regardless of the living arrangement.

[Renegade]

The system right now makes no distinction between a higher income spouse with no custody and a higher income spouse with 50-50 custody. The higher income spouse has to pay exactly the same amount of child support even though the higher income spouse also pays 50% of the child rearing expenses directly. This situation is unfair. I can see the argument that taking the kids to dinner and the movies on the weekend should not be counted as 'child rearing expenses' for the purposes of calculating support.

RW, I don't believe your statement is accurate. The child support guidelines only apply for situation where one parent has more than 60% physical custody, so in a 50-50 situation the guidelines would not apply and the situation would vary case-by-case. However, you are essentially correct that the system does not distinguish between the situatin where the paying parent has 39% physical custody or the paying parent has 0% custody. If the paying parent has 39%% physical custody, he or she essentially have the same fixed costs as the reciepient parent but the system does not take that into account.

[Riverwind]

RW, I don't believe your statement is accurate. The child support guidelines only apply for situation where one parent has more than 60% physical custody, so in a 50-50 situation the guidelines would not apply and the situation would vary case-by-case.

The guidelines still apply. What happens is both spouses calculate how much support they would have to pay if the other spouse has sole custody. The parent with the higher income then submits the difference. If one spouse has little or no income (i.e. a remarried stay at home spouse) then the other spouse ends up paying full child support under the guidelines _and_ paying for care of the children 50% of time. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/step_6.html

[Renegade]

RW, I don't believe your statement is accurate. The child support guidelines only apply for situation where one parent has more than 60% physical custody, so in a 50-50 situation the guidelines would not apply and the situation would vary case-by-case.

The guidelines still apply. What happens is both spouses calculate how much support they would have to pay if the other spouse has sole custody. The parent with the higher income then submits the difference. If one spouse has little or no income (i.e. a remarried stay at home spouse) then the other spouse ends up paying full child support under the guidelines _and_ paying for care of the children 50% of time. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/step_6.html

I stand corrected. The shared custody situation is still accomodated in the guidelines. That would mean that a higher income parent with 59% physical custody still could be obligated to pay 100% of the cost.

This is even worse than I first thought.

[Riverwind]

I stand corrected. The shared custody situation is still accommodated in the guidelines. That would mean that a higher income parent with 59% physical custody still could be obligated to pay 100% of the cost.

This is even worse than I first thought.

IMO, this subtle rule proves that child support is not just about paying for the cost of child - it is also about subsidizing the lifestyle of the lower income spouse (usually the wife) after separation. In every other situation the guidelines repeat over and over again how the income of the receiving parent is not a consideration, however, as soon as you have a shared custody case the support paid by the higher income spouse depends entirely on the income of the lower income spouse. This creates a perverse incentive where one spouse has an incentive to not work at all.

If both parents have 50-50 custody then no support should be required for day to day expenses no matter what the income of each spouse is. One time expenses such as orthodontic work could be still be split according to ability to pay. If one spouse cannot afford to have 50% custody without income from the other spouse then that could be a consideration when calculating spousal support - it should not be considered child support.

[Live From China]

I am going to change the topic here slightly (still related though): I am curious as to "how far" parental responsibilities can extend. For example, I know that support arrangements can be made to help an adult child financially while they are in university. However, yesterday, I was told that under family law parents can be legally forced to assist their adult children in other areas, e.g., the "child" does not now how to perform a maintenance operation on their house and the parent does. The adult child can have a judge force the parent to assist/teach them.

At first, I rolled my eyes, but then I thought, "Wait a minute, we all know the law can be extremely bizarre and unjust, even out-and-out 'whacky'." If anyone knows of such a statute in family law, let me hear it. Personally, I don't believe it, but strangely enough, I have been wrong before

[Renegade]

I am going to change the topic here slightly (still related though): I am curious as to "how far" parental responsibilities can extend. For example, I know that support arrangements can be made to help an adult child financially while they are in university. However, yesterday, I was told that under family law parents can be legally forced to assist their adult children in other areas, e.g., the "child" does not now how to perform a maintenance operation on their house and the parent does. The adult child can have a judge force the parent to assist/teach them.

At first, I rolled my eyes, but then I thought, "Wait a minute, we all know the law can be extremely bizarre and unjust, even out-and-out 'whacky'." If anyone knows of such a statute in family law, let me hear it. Personally, I don't believe it, but strangely enough, I have been wrong before

When the parents are together I am not aware of any laws in our society which obligate the parent to anything toward adult children. In fact the law seems to be vague about responsiblities toward minor children as well. Of course no adult can neglect a child in their care or abuse them, but what are their obligations beyond that? Do they have an obligation to educate them religiously? Is there a minimium level of lifestyle they must provide their kids? Until the parents split, I think the obligations, while they may exist morally, do not exist in law.

Another interesting question is what are the obligations of kids toward parents? I know at one point Singapore was consdering a “Parents Maintenance Bill”, which gave aged parents the ability to sue adult children for financial support. I would seem that we have decided that these are society's obligations but not the childs.

[Riverwind]

Another interesting question is what are the obligations of kids toward parents? I know at one point Singapore was consdering a “Parents Maintenance Bill”, which gave aged parents the ability to sue adult children for financial support. I would seem that we have decided that these are society's obligations but not the childs.

I believe elderly parents are allowed to sue children for support in Canada, however, actual cases are few and far between and there is no absolute right to support under the law like there is for children.

[FTA Lawyer]

I am going to change the topic here slightly (still related though): I am curious as to "how far" parental responsibilities can extend. For example, I know that support arrangements can be made to help an adult child financially while they are in university. However, yesterday, I was told that under family law parents can be legally forced to assist their adult children in other areas, e.g., the "child" does not now how to perform a maintenance operation on their house and the parent does. The adult child can have a judge force the parent to assist/teach them.

At first, I rolled my eyes, but then I thought, "Wait a minute, we all know the law can be extremely bizarre and unjust, even out-and-out 'whacky'." If anyone knows of such a statute in family law, let me hear it. Personally, I don't believe it, but strangely enough, I have been wrong before

The law has never been able to force someone to be a good parent...

FTA

[Live From China]

Quoting myself:

If anyone knows of such a statute in family law, let me hear it.

Well, I really did think that this claim was a load of hooey!