BristolUK

Looks to be at least 50% extra for two kids....so on DBD's reckoning (the post I responded to) that would be at least $1500 or at least $18000 a year - (still) more than the four of us.

I (still) wonder what they're going without.

dbd33

You've told us before that you don't value education so that's a considerable saving. Do your children perhaps have "English teeth"?

Also, how often do they go home? I think if we raise our children in the wilderness we owe it to them to ship them to Europe at least once a year.

BristolUK

Actually, what I said some months ago - when you listed University costs as a necessity - was that I didn't realise going to university was compulsory.

The kids are my step kids and they are Canadian...as are their teeth.

dbd33

What about the dentist then, that must cost a bundle.

My overall point though isn't that children funded at less than a grand a month are necessarily suffering but that for someone making better than a hundred grand to pay only that in child support is, at the very least, ungenerous.

BristolUK

That's a fair point. But I was only commenting on your assertion that a child costs at least $1000 a month to keep (regardless of anybody's income).

Dental costs are high, yes. But only problematic since the child tax benefit was cut for the 18 year old still at school.

Almost Canadian

Any such expenses are deemed to be "special" irrespective of how you feel about it. The figures are what the Government states a child requires to be able to live a "normal" life. Sports, tuition (higher education) are special expenses. I have never known a child pine for appliances and you appear to be forgetting that such items would have been dealt with as part of the divorce settlement. These figures are not about "capital costs" but are about food, clothing, regular schooling etc.

I have 3 children, combined they do not costs anything like the figures I would have to pay for them if I was subjected to the Guidelines. They ride horses, ski, swim, and live as all of their classmates do. I am not arguing that there may be a moral argument for the higher earning spouse to contribute more, I am just arguing that the figures are not as derisory as you have suggested.

dbd33

Watch out for the arrival of the Ipod and the Sony Play Station, they'll reach you eventually. When they do take note that they, like computers, require periodic upgrading, I suppose if one divorces biannually then settlements may cover them but I was thinking of the children of a single divorce.

dingbat

I don't get alimony, never have. I got no matrimonial assets either...lol...after twenty odd years too, all I was left was his debts. Try the Guidelines for four children, on a falsely reduced offset income of less than $50,000. That figure is insulting, given the standard of living comparison between his household and mine, so I stand by my opinion.

Almost Canadian

I wasn't arguing that and, from your previous posts, it is apparent you got the shitty end of the stick. But, the Guidelines are not supposed to address the issues you have referred to.

dbd33

What exactly are "special expenses", besides being routine expenses not covered by child support, and how is the custodial parent expected to fund them?

DaveLovesDee

I wouldn't consider routine expenses to be 'special', and would expect these to be covered by the regular child support.

dbd33

Me too.

However, according to our resident shyster dental care and vacations are "special". Hence the question as to what is special and where the money is supposed to come from. Are wheelchairs and surgical braces "special"? If vacations are "special" how about cinemas and amusement parks? Is there a "special" fund, perhaps provided by some Benevolent Council of Divorce Lawyers, to finance these things?

Almost Canadian

Do you always have to resort to name calling?

Special expenses in Alberta are set out in section 7 of this Regulation http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Re...sbn=0779741110

I would assume that other Provinces have similar secondary legislation.

Usually, the child would apply for such expenses before they are incurred, and the Court would assess the Application and decide accordingly. I note that, once again, you wish to blame the legal system for the fact that people are obnoxious to one another.

dbd33

I don't blame the legal system for the fact that people are obnoxious to one another. I think involvement with the legal system tends to make people obnoxious but, in the case of people who have chosen involvement in the legal system, one has to think they were typically obnoxious in the first place. It can't just be that doing their job has rotted their souls.

The link seems to me to describe expenses that are included in child support

"7(1) In a child support order the court may provide for an amount to cover all or any portion of the following expenses"

they seem only to be "special" in that some children don't need them, for example in the case of dental costs, because one or the other parents has insurance to cover them. All the items listed under "Special or extraordinary expenses" seem to be items that not all children need but for those children who do need them they're just routine costs.

I suppose then that the guideline support payment for the $105,000 parent of an uninsured child would be something like $1,000+1/12th of the typical dental bills. Still niggardly, but marginally less so.

Almost Canadian

As I have said to you before, in my experience, people choose lawyers that reflect their own personalities, timid people choose timid lawyers, obnoxious people choose obnoxious lawyers. I have never met you or any lawyer that you have instructed some I am unable to comment