DaveLovesDee

Both can be ordered by a court to pay! Woman possibly gets lots of money in theory.

fledermaus

It's about the children isn't it? not how evil women are. Which seems to be your point.

adele

Poor kids

DaveLovesDee

It's always about the children, isn't it. No it isn't, but it should be. It's about money!

Child support is about financially assisting the parent with custody, which the absent parent would have contributed towards anyway if they'd still been part of the family household. That money is used by the custodial parent as they choose. It should be termed spousal support instead of child support.

The children do not receive the money, though they should and usually do benefit from what it is spent on by the custodial parent. If child support is about the children, then the money should be put in trust for them to spend on reaching the age of majority, or spent directly on them by the absent parent. It's not the kids fault their parents separate. They deserve better support afterwards than having a price tag put on them and told who they see and when. If it was about the children, instead of increasing spousal support, the courts would increase the amount of time children could spend with the absent parent.

As the law currently stands, a custodial parent could have a series of relationships with people who financially support them and the children, and each one of those partners could then be assessed as being required to pay varying amounts of financial support.


My post theorising that the woman could get lots of money was referring to the point that if two 'absent parents' both paid child support to the same custodial parent then the custodial parent can in theory make a fair amount of money. The post I responded to used 2 males as the absent parents and a female as the custodial parent. Where was the suggestion of women being evil?

dingbat

Child support in an income related contribution toward the cost of raising children. It does not cover a fraction of what it should, and fyi, every penny I get (on the rare occasion I do get something) goes directly to my kids. My eldest physically gets the cash. The judge actually worked out that I cover over 79% of the actual basic costs of maintaining my children. I earn much less than my ex, so go figure. Child support levels are insulting.

Parents who have an issue with paying it really have an issue with the ex, lets be honest. The real bitch is with the thought that the ex in some way benefits from the child support. Too bad. My ex's latest squeeze tried (and failed) to have his child support obligation reduced, even though he was already significantly underpaying. It was increased by the court, not that I will ever get it, but his arrears are now at a house deposit level. He is the one with new houses, cars, holidays every year and flat screen TV's. He never buys the kids a thing, ever, nor has he ever bothered to see them. I am the one with ancient old furniture and TV's. He on the other hand, did not even buy his kids a Christmas card, let alone a single gift for the fourth year running. He went on a very expensive vacation instead - for the third time this year. His children should have had some of that evidently spare money, not him.

Where on earth do you get the idea that putting money in trust is going to help the kids now, when they need it? Kids are expensive, they need clothes, food, housing, transporting, educating, socializing i.e. basic needs have to be met. How does depriving the children of money until they are adults help with their upbringing?

DaveLovesDee

I admit that I hadn't thought that bit completely through at the time but I do agree with your point.

Purley

Obviously Dingbat has been one of those who has had and still has a bad experience with a totally irresponsible father. They are not all like that. I personally know several families where the children's parents are not together but they are both mature and grounded enough to both support the children and everyone seems happy with the situation.

My son supported my granddaughter, while her mother flitted around the world and paid nothing. However, things have greatly improved. My granddaughter will be 16 in July. She gets along with both parents. Spends time at each house and while her Mom has managed to marry a guy with money and my son doesn't really have anything to do with them on a daily basis, they get along OK.

(And while this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, the new husband seems like a really nice guy, but anal about tidiness etc. The house looks like a show home. I said to my granddaughter that I had never been there when there was ANYTHING out of place or ANYTHING on the kitchen counter or anywhere else. She said "At the moment there are five tomatoes on the counter - lined up from big to small in a row." If she brushes her hair in the bathroom, she has to put the hair brush away in the drawer, same with toothbrush and toothpaste! My house is pretty tidy, but that would drive me nuts.")

Almost Canadian

I don't agree with this part of your post at all. When I first checked out the levels of child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines here:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/sup-pen/grl/pdftab.html
I was amazed. Don't forget, these figures are for child support only, not alimony, not "carving up the matrimonial assets". If one parent refuses to pay, whilst that makes a difference to the recipient, it doesn't alter the fact that the amounts, in my opinion, are more than appropriate.

dbd33

According to that chart a man in Ontario who has one child and earns $105,000 a year should pay $917 a month in child support. If that's not "insulting" then perhaps "pathetic" would be better.

Purley

Well, I don't know about that. After all, this is just for a child. It doesn't say that the man is not paying maintenance to his ex-wife. So I would think that to get the full picture, you would have to know the total.

I have absolutely no idea, but it could be that he is paying $8,000 a month to his ex. I am not saying this is what is happening. I am just saying we need to have all the information before making a judgment.

Souvenir

It does seem rather low: about 10% of gross. I think it may be standard for Canada, though. The Boy (19) moved to live with his dad last summer. He's still in education, so Souvette now has to pay maintenence. The amount, set by the court, is about 10%.

<shudders at what he agreed to pay back in 1998>

Almost Canadian

Bearing in mind this is for child support only, why do you feel it is pathetic? Do you think a single child would burn through that amount each month? Don't forget, this is solely for the expenses of the child, not for rent etc for the spouse (as that would be assessed under a different head) and does not include "special expenses" i.e., dental, vacations etc.

The Guidelines do not provide the judge with any real room for discretion, the amounts are what they are

dbd33

Yes, I think a child costs more than a thousand dollars a month to keep in food, clothes, tuition, books, sports, furniture, appliances and so on. I don't see that "special expenses" should be excluded since the custodial spouse is not going to be able to collect additional funds for these from the absent one. The dentist can, of course, easily consume $1,000 in a month.

Further, 10% of one's gross income is an inappropriately trivial proportion to commit to the support of a person one has created and who's wellbeing should be the central concern of one's life.

The point is seemly that the amounts are insulting, not that judges individually insult custodial parents.

BristolUK

Hmmmmm....so that's $2,000 for two kids....$24000 a year.

That's $6000 a year more than the four of us have coming in since Child Tax Benefit was cut for the 18 year old even though she's still at school.

I wonder what they are going without.

They're not starving or going around naked or missing school equipment. Admittedly neither is particularly interested in sports.

Novocastrian

Look at the link in AC's post. It doesn't increase linearly with the number of kids.