Re: Supporting a child back home
 

Perzactly. Here is a link to the Federal Child Support Guidelines: Child Support Guidelines - Alberta At an income of $50,000 in Alberta, one would be paying $425 a month for a single child; for two children, one's income would need to be $28,800.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

WOW if my partner left me in Canada I would be ******! !

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

That's why I posted what I did above.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

Can I just ask, in general, at what age are the children when payments can stop?

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

In Canada, generally 18, unless they are in full time education.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

Thanks, do you know if it is the same for the UK?

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

The same. You are required to pay support whilst they are in full time secondary education. If they continue onto sixth form further education after High School, you are still obliged to pay until they finish college, usually around the age of 18.

My Ex threw a strop after I stopped payments when my son started University - He had turned 18 in the August & wasn't even living at home anymore! :rolleyes:

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

It seems to me that, in Ontario, you can apply to have the finances recalculated. I recall my lawyer cautioning me against taking up with anyone who has substantial assets or income and against winning the lottery.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

When I split up from my ex we had 3 children. He gave me £175 per month when he remembered. Then he stopped altogether.
I needed his support, I was on my own, so I contacted the CSA and they had to put an attachment of earnings on him for £600!
If he had continued paying the £175 I would never have done that.
Irrespective of where the child lives, he/she needs clothes, food and a roof over his/her head.

If the resident parent remarries it's not really the responsibility of the new spouse to pay for the children of a previous relationship so the non resident parent should contribute.

My ex had his girlfriend and her daughter from a previous relationship move in with him and as a result his payments went down. Now is that fair that this "step daughter" had priority over his own children?

The money I got from him went into the household account. I lived in a larger house as I had the children and as a result had a larger mortgage than I would have if I had been on my own. I had to drive a larger car, not luxurious just larger and all the bills that went with it were higher.

Now in Canada he doesn't pay me a cent, that was my bargaining tool to get his permission to move over here. But they're still his kids even 3,000 miles away...

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

Why shouldn't the absent parent want to contribute towards their child upbringing and why should a Step parent have to help cover all the costs?

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

Divorce is based upon federal, not provincial, legislation so the advice your lawyer gave you had little to do with child support payments, but may have had to do with spousal support payments, or, it may have had to do with the fact that you are self employed.

Child support is one of the few areas where lawyers don't really argue with one another as it is so straightforward: you calculate income and, except in very rare circumstances, apply the appropriate guideline amount.

The only real issue is calculating income. For the vast majority of employed people it is straightforward. For the self employed and, particularly, those that are employed via their own corporation, the whole issue of what is your appropriate income and why are you retaining so much capital within the corporation becomes a reason for dispute, particularly if you are employing a new partner (as in shagging partner) and pushing income their way.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

We didn't divorce until the children were grown up, reasoning that it was legal fees vs. university tuition, so child support was never an issue.

There was an extended wrangle over income, assets and so on, the fees for that argument became a financial black hole. In the end we settled, still two years from a court date, by my turning over all visible assets and agreeing to pay a third of my then income in spousal support so long as my ex lives. I knew then that I should have settled the matter of what happens if I die first and my estate cannot maintain the payments as agreed but, shit, after three years and a hundred grand in fees; I'd had enough.

The advice was clear and that wasn't the only lawyer who represented me who cautioned that a settlement should be viewed as temporary, I should be aware that a material change in my circumstances might trigger a new round of litigation. I was left wondering how former spouses know enough about each other's lives to be able to usefully trigger a renegotiation. I didn't ask for fear that the explanation would drag on for an hour and another day's pay.

Fortunately the ex left the country greatly reducing that risk and doing so in a manner less drastic than using the "two guys from Detroit" suggested by a lawyer I had earlier asked to represent me. He declined the opportunity one the grounds that a) I couldn't afford him and b) I was going to get ****ed in court. "Men", he said "always do".

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

Oh the absent parent should want to be a part of the kids life as much as possible, in my opinion. Not just financially. And yes they should contribute to the well being and future of the kid as much as possible.

If a person is married again, surely the new spouse takes on family obligations whether they're their children or not? I doubt very much that a decent step parent will refuse to contribute financially to the step kids lives. My comment on this scenario is that i think an option should be available (after means testing) where the absent parent can choose to pay into a higher education fund, or account that isn't accessible until the child reaches a certain age. Maybe this exists?

It must be terrible for the absent parent to have to support two families (ish) while the custodian has to support half a family (ish). That would put the children in one family at a huge disadvantage Especially if the latter decided to move the children to another country and more so if they still demanded payment to keep the kids in hockey skates and cheese.

But like i said, i don't have experience or knowledge so just commenting out of curiosity and guess work. Obviously each situation can be very different.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

My UK court order stipulates that I pay maintenance until he is 17 or finishes full-time education, whichever is the later. He's 16 now and, sadly, shows no sign of being a thicko. I could use that £515 quid a month.

My stepson moved to live with his dad about three years ago. He's 22 but still in full-time education, so we're on the hook for $800 a month, most of which ends up in his father's pocket (the git charges his own son for rent and board). The father is naturally in no hurry for his son to finish school.

Re: Supporting a child back home
 

22???? In the UK even with further education I'm sure the upper limit is 19! What if you get one of these kids that studies until he's 30 because he keeps changing careers? That's taking the p***!!!!