Divorce decree: Both parents responsible for child's financial welfare

How often does one hear about the parent with custody moving into a more reasonably priced house to prevent eviction? Then think of how often the parent with custody uses access to the children as leverage.

Why not guarantee a minimum living amount for all children? We can charge wealthier divorcing parents more to help the poorer children (that might encourage wealthier parents to stay married)

I do not believe in divorce. My brother and I are the only ones in my entire family that are not divorced. Nevertheless, it happens. All of my cousins, uncles, etc have had very bitter divorces. In all cases, the man get screwed. The ex-wives, who alway get custody of the children no matter what, demand unrealistic alimony payments, and always win. It is interesting to note that in all cases, these ex-wives spend these alimony payments on extravangent trips with their new boy toys, leaving the children struggling, and again demanding more money, which these stupid judges continue to support. I fully believe that in a case of divorce, BOTH parents must contribute equally (at least to their financial ability) to support their children.

I am a divorced mother of two children. The father, quit his job so he would not have to pay child support. He has worked under the table te last few years, there is no T-4. Now he lives in the States. He has always had access to his children even though he has never supported them. As far as I am concerned he is a dead beat father. However, the children still need thier dad. Just wish he would realize how much they are missing out on because of his hatred for me. If I had my way, he would not see them until he paid support.

I have 2 sons both going through hell. Both are being denied access. Neither are deadbeat dads though they are portrayed as such. They have been ordered to pay $1600.00 and $1400.00 respectively. I ask you, how are they supposed to survive themselves with what is left over? Rent is $1000,00 if they want to have a place big enough to have the kids over. Then there are utilities, car insurance, food. Is anybody listening? The problem is the DAM JUDGES. The women are getting too high awards. My sons are both going bankrupt because their wives got major settlements, wasted the money and now cry poverty. My sons have simply given up because the JUDGES do not dispense justice. They strip the man of all his dignity and wonder why the man gives up. And the money the wife gets she spends on drugs because she admitted she does drugs in her affidavit. And you wonder why my son does not want to give her money? Why did she get the kid's? Plus they both get child tax credit. Things have got to change. One arm of government says we have too many homeless people and another arm is forcing people onto the streets.

My question is this....why doesn't the woman actually get a job when the kids are older (teens) AND support herself! Should the courts allow being an "ex wife" as a full time job? As a divorced woman I say where is their self respect! I have never taken a dime from my ex and we split the kids time and expenses 50/50...BECAUSE that is what is best for the kids!

Thank you Susan.

This is for the men out there. Because I know that most women now-a-days do not have the intelligence, or self respect, to research anything. There are reasons for the backward justice system that we have. And it has nothing to do with empowering women. In fact, it is the opposite.
Google - Mark Passio, and listen to his free podcasts (whatonearthishappeningdotcom). Our rulers follow a religion... and it is not the religion you might think. Wake up people!!

Courts are against men.
1) stayed in bad marriage for child from verbal abusive mother until child turned 18
2) was home every day at 4:30 and took child to sports, did the homework, lessons, friends, etc
3) ex decided she wasn't getting enough "stuff" even though she only worked P/T so she left
4) in 23 yrs of "marriage", sex stopped after first 6 yrs when child came
5) after 23 yrs, I filed for divorce since ex couldn't take child
6) supported 18 yr to finish school and self
7) courts awarded ex $500/month ALIMONY even though she doesn't work more than 15 hrs/wk and 40 wks/yr AND SHE HAS HONOURS B.A.

I drive 1 1/2 hrs each way to full-time work so I can save some money for child and my retirement AND SO EX-WIFE CAN WORK P/T AND GET $500/MON FROM ME AND SHE CAN GO TO MEXICO EA. YEAR

IS THAT FRIGGIN' JUSTICE ... the system is so messed up ... some days I want to chuck it all in ... modern slave ... looking forward to the day that I retire and tell EX AND COURTS ...

GO F*** YOURSELVES!!!

Family law Canada acts like Robin Hood on ectasy ..treats men like mobile ATMs . In one case the judge took evidence of the wife cashing in her RRSPS as a sign of poverty even though receipts showed she got a boob-job with the money. The courts are a freefall into how do we give this poor woman more money so that she has no motive to get a job. In one recent case the poor wifey didn't want to go back to work at her job as a bank teller so she embarked on a correspondence course into Addiction Counselling" and asked the judge to allw her to spend 6 years to do something which could be completed in 10 weeks part time online. The judge agreed and as soon as the trial was over she just dropped allthe courses ..didn't need that ruse anmore. The last post here said the ex quit his job to avoid paying child support ..oh if only it was that easy. To get off child support is nigh on impossible ..they will impute wages , they will set the FRO dogs on you , even genuine cases of people getting laid off are subjected to horror. The other thing is that you can't just stp paying ..you have to get a court motion and then pray that the judge will be sympathetic. One recent case where the kids were 50/50 access , the wife refused to work and that was OK , but when the guy lost HIS job they thereatened to impute a wage which would have forced him into bancruptcy
They also treat exs as insurance policies for future payouts should they lose a job or get sick .isn't that what insurance is for ? There's new laws being passed in MA which I really hope will make their way across the border.

Hi Susan. I'm not divorced and very thankful I"m not, after reading these comments. However, as a stay-at-home mom myself, the reason I don't get a full-time job outside the home is so I can be here for my teenagers if and when they need me 24/7. I get told all the time that these teenagers can take care of themselves. However, my question is, WILL they take care of themselves, at this stage in life, properly? The answer I seem to get is "no." when I look at other homes (broken homes mainly). I'm happily married to a great husband who has a full-time job that we need and who is happy to "bring home the bacon" while I give the teens guidance.

Bottom line if both parents truly cared for the kids they made together, more then themselves, the family court system wouldn't even be nessasary. Men would support there kids and wives would be resaonable in the amount of money they NEED. But 95% of the time we waste tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers fighting over a few hundred of dollars. WHAT A WASTE!!
I spend $20,000 on a lawyer while my ex quit her job to get legal aide. The end result I pay an extra $100.00 a month, and I have a document from a judge so my ex cant refuse to give me the kids on my time and she can no longer use my kids as leverage to get what she wants from me. The problem is she's still on welfare and is somehow able to fly to cuba, florida and new york city, get laser eye $6000, and have 3 computers and 4 flat screen tv's in her home?!! I can barely pay my mortage on a 800sqft home every month..... The system is BROKE!!!!!

Quite simply this does not represent every case and there are non-custodial supporting parents (not just men) out there who either just want to be bitter or can't budget - maybe both. 50/50 is the ideal. I hope it happens for some.

The system is unfair and favors women. Women are automatically awarded primary custody
and men are forced to accept the typical every other weekend, every other wednesday visitation agreement. When the woman moves on and marries, she continues to have majority of the time
with the child and benefit from her ex's income and her new husband's income. Meanwhile, the biological father goes without seeing their child grow up and pays a large percentage of after tax dollars to support 'the child'. There is nothing wrong with supporting your child, but the system needs to address the fact that the biological father also needs to be able to support himself. Men and women both work now. Child support calculations do not take into account the biological mother's salary, let alone the salary of her new husband when she remarries. it' a cash grab.

Wow these comments are pretty negative towards the women! I am a single mother of children aged 7 and 3 and I have a full time job. I think the table amount of child support is a little high, but as a reasonable person who makes the same income as my ex, he only pay's half of what he should pay because that is what I needed even though he only has them less than 30% of the time. Instead extra things like activities and medical costs are equally split and we both are required to put money in a RESP each year. I don't agree with alimony unless there is a true physical disability since people need to become responsible ADULTS and make choices to help themselves and show their children that anyone can overcome challenges.There are no guarantees in life so sometimes changes are needed regardless of who initiates the divorce.
As a comment on CMDL's note about "benefit from her ex's income and her new husband's income" what about the men who re-marry and are now in a double income family while the ex is in a single (as in my case). The money isn't related to the new partner - surely I don't want or expect someone else to pay to raise our kids, so I feel the current system is correct in excluding them.
I feel the government needs 2 child support tables; one that is lower to reflect parents that can still communicate and Dad's that are involved in their childrens lives and the current table for parents that are the opposite (like Nancy). I would need table amount if we didn't speak and he didn't agree with activities and other items. It really does come down to adults making an effort to put the kids first.

I am a single mom of 2 toddlers...recently seperated from my husband. My husband is on ODSP due to a chronic injury...his income is $1000/month. I work part time plus take care of my children 99% of the time on my own. We went to court a few months back....only because neither of us could afford a lawyer to draw up seperation papers....so we went with legal aid and therefore had to go through the courts. My lawyer against my request, put a support order in the paperwork. I am able to get by and provide a life for my children, do I have a heck of alot of disposable income??? Hell no! It is extremely important to me that their father can get his life together and be a good dad to my kids....so from 1000/mth he is ordered to pay me $146, I know for two kids thats not a lot but how is he supposed to live on $850/mth???? that's pretty much just rent for him. I would have to agree that the system is very unfair to men...and I don't get women who take their kids fathers to the cleaners....think about your children, wait until they grow up and ask why daddy wasnt around too much or why daddy is getting kicked out of his apartment etc....having fun explaining that you were a greedy selfish bitch. Kids need their dads and their dads need to have some money to be able to have a good life to share with their children.

I am a single male 40 now,done with the child support thing for my son whom is 23 now.i am on alot of online dating sites trying to meet woman my age.The fact is most my age that are single have kids understandably.But they all seem to have nice homes and fancy cars,and like one poster said above, travell all over with their new boy toy.Go look at the adds on these sites they'reall lookin for guys to travel with.They left their ex's because all he did was work,work ie provide for them,so they leave him.Yet they want some fabulous single guy that has all this money and time to travell with them.hello if we have money to travell,it's because we work,work..and don't have time to travell,which is why you leave in the first place.I feel bad bringing up this subject as none of them like to talk about it,now i know why!
It really makes me sick, i have zero respect for woman whom take their ex's to the cleaners.
So what exactly are the rules for child support,alimony,supporting an ex wife while she's in school,sounds like alot has changed from when i split with my girl friend at the young age of 24.What are the rules or how do they change if two couple re marry.Is there somewhere i can go to get the rules in writing pertaining to divorce and the different scenarios???I want to know what i'm getting myself into before rather than after the fact

signed scared stiff to even date one of these,canada

Men get screwed and the courts priority is money. In pre trail the madame justice said it wasn't worth going to trial for shared custody of the kids (which they said they wanted to both parents) because of their age, (11,9,8,5) but it was worth going to trial over the extra $160 a month in support the mother was after. Income tax and child support is 48% of my gross income. I currently live with an after tax income of $7.15 an hour and spend $150 a month just on gas to see my kids who now live 45 minutes away.

Ironically she can afford to leave her house sit empty for a whole year after she moved out of town to live with her new boyfriend while I have to live in affordable housing. Since I actually work full time and took extra hours because I needed the money my income was higher, working 50-60 hours a week will do that. Now she in back in court and after $13,000 in back support just because she is mad at me. Has told me so and the kids, even tells the kids I am a burden on society because I have to live in affordable housing. Not surprisingly they don't like it here.

Yeh the system is screwed, her tax free income was $22,000 and she worked near full time hours while I am forced to live in affordable housing, work full time hours in construction, depend on the food bank and Christmas pamper and charity for Christmas gifts for my kids. I have a 10 year old daughter that I have never seen on Christmas or her birthday. Nest year her 11 th birthday happens to fall on my access night so I might finally get to see her on her birthday but somehow I suspect I will be denied access.

Like was mentioned earlier this is modern day slavery, only worse. Atleast slaves of old got to see their kids. The sad reality is that had my kids died all those years ago I would have been devastated but would be much better off today. As it is I will work myself to death so that I can continue to be part of my kids lives while she and her new husband , new baby and our 4 kids, all 7, fly off for vacations every year or so. It has nothing to do with the financial needs of the kids or their best interests. Some of the reply by women here are very realistic, too bad they can't talk sense into my ex, and amazingly, she thinks she's a good christian. It all about money and power, nothing to do with the best interests of the kids or the people involved in their lives.

What is it going to take to make changes happen.

Well certainly the majority of examples on here are about men who are being abused by the legal system (even if they have reasonable ex-wives). I think the one thing that men have to realize is that no one forced you to get married. I have been in several long term relationships that could have ended in marriage but I chose to stay unmarried to avoid what you have experienced. Yes, the women I dated left me because I wouldn't commit but there are many other women out there to date. NOw that women are sexually liberated too it means that most men don't need to be married to have sex. With today's laws and court system there really is no excuse for a man to get married.

@ Ex-pat

Well, you've nailed it. There has been an agenda all along. And it's called "Depopulation and the Destruction of the Family Unit - the last line of defense against a tyrannical government".

But it sounds like you are cheerleading this. So either you are a government agent, or you are ignorant of all that is good.

"All the ladies, now - Abrahadabra, Hocus-Pocus, and, Voila! - You are sexually liberated! (hehe, chuckle, chuckle).

Now, keep taking that synthetic estrogen pill - EVERY SINGLE DAY - never mind where it goes once you flush it down the toilet... it's gone, isn't it?

The real problem is, for the most part the baby boomer women got taught by their families to find a man, not a job. Today, the two generations below mine, the men expect the woman to have a job and carry their own weight with a paycheck. However, for older women, such as myself it is very hard to start over. You can't get a good job, after having your husband's children, the way the system works in Canada anyway. So, women (not just men) are bitter and like men, going through mid-life crisis, and tend to get angrier over time and therefore take men to the cleaners. I'm not saying it's right. That's the way Canada works though.

When you get right down to it, we're all asking the same urgent question: Just where the hell can I go for a really safe investment? Unless you’re Warren Buffett, Bill Gates or the Saudi Royal family, forget gold. Globally, fiat currency systems are collapsing under the weight of their own BS and these days, even a 6 year old child can see they are nothing but “smoke & mirrors”, Ponzi schemes to enrich the few at the expense of the many. That would leave either select grade gemstones (investment diamonds “roughs & colors”, Tanzanite, Mogok sapphires, rubies and other rarities) or government bonds. So, if you're happy with a 1% return go with bonds...if not, then check www.Investmentgems.vpweb.ca

Some of these comments are truly heartbreaking. I am happily married with 2 small boys, but I was a product of a divorce at a very young age. I saw both sides: A mother who did everything in her power to turn us against our father and restrict access, and a father who immediately after leaving us, took off for another province to avoid paying any kind of support. As a 34 year old adult, I can see how both were only thinking of themselves.

The root of all problems begins with first marrying the right person. All too often people marry someone even though they have issue with them to begin with. Problems never go away, they only get worse.

Second, if a divorce is necessary, take your head out of your ass (both husband and wife) and think of the CHILDREN first. I know some women, the first thing they want to do after shedding a husband is to go on a free for all. You brought the children into the world, grow the $hit up and think of them and their needs. Draining a man for all he has doesn't do anyone any good, ESPECIALLY the kids. (they learn by example, and they are more likely to end up in a dysfunctional relationship in the future). And for the guys, those that avoid paying anything because you are sick of the woman you married and subsequently divorced... put your childish feelings aside and look after your kids. That doesn't mean living in squallor, it means realizing that raising kids is a LIFELONG commitment.

I think everyone needs to be slapped in a divorce.

I am not a product of divorce so my comments are based solely on "outside looking in". Your divorce should lower the standard of living you were accustomed to. It is quite possible a family had 1 car and 1 home that was ideal for the family. Now divorced, it is expected that the same salary must now pay for 2 living accommodations and an additional car. The courts will keep this in mind. We all know that women in general are not as well off in their later years because our society has always given them less pay for the same type of work. Their CPP/OAS is less then men. Courts also keep this in mind. The courts base their figures on financial facts and not common sense. The adults need to use proper judgement (very difficult in some cases, I am sure) to ensure the kids' needs are met but that both divorcees have a decent standard of living. If income has changed for any of the adults, there should be an adjustment made by them and not the courts. Be civilized I suppose.

To: Posted by Susan - September 28th: What makes you think that the women don't have jobs? Everyone I know is divorced and as it turns out, the women have better jobs than the men. Both of my sisters-in-law are in the medical field and both of their ex-husbands have "better things to do" than pay for the kids. Both dads have chosen not to see the children because they believe that the moms are out to get them. Neither of them pay alot (if at all). My brother was court ordered to pay $600/month for his 2 kids but he only gives her 2 or 300 every couple of months. She has not persued legal action because of the kids. She has never denied him access to the kids but he figures he shouldn't have to pay if he has nothing to do with them. What a LOSER! Both these women are VERY HARD-WORKING single moms whose kids have been given every opportunity through support groups and community activities. In fact, they have had more extra-curricular activities than my 2 kids and my husband and I have been together for 22 years.
* Every situation is different, so don't stereo-type if you don't have all the facts!*

Well, Well... For all you people who may have glanced over my previous posts, may I say... I told you so!!

The synchronicity here is palpable... as you will note the date of my posts precedes this article.

When will humanity wake up??

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/pregnancy-drug-des-raises-daughters-cancer-odds

pat it sound like grade 3 was the best 5 years of your life

Child support guidelines in Canada are designed to punish those who pay. A quick search on the Federal Governments website will explain how the guidelines came into effect and how truely corrupt they are. Child support is on gross income, 65% of your income is subject to taxes and child support, for one child. The model itsself is based on many assumptions…..the payer has NO expenses for the children yet they are to provide food, clothing, toys, beds, etc. etc. etc. the very same things the recipient has to provide. The model also states both the recipient and payer are single, yet statistics show most families are blended. The guidelines also state payments are to reflect payers income to be sure the children and spouse have the same standard of life they had before the seperation. So this means absolutly there is built in spousal support! With child support not reflected in tax assesments the payer is paying huge amount of taxes, while the recipient pays none. Yet if the recipient is on social assistance it is income, if the recipient is trying to build credit it is income…….child support is income and should be treated as such. The government decided it is not income simply to pad their pockets……1 billion dollars in five years to be exact!
I am a “second” wife, I completely agree with the concept of child support. They are his children, he should HELP to support them. My husband pays support for his 2 children, I have a child as well from a previous marriage. My sons father died when he was very young, I recieved no death benefits of any kind, I never went to social services. I worked full time. My son is 15, non verbal, not toilet trained, doesn’t sleep more than 5 hours per night, has servere eating dissorders….he is autistic and is considered severe on the spectum. I have worked full time his whole life…..until recently. We live in Saskatchewan where the disability supports are only availiable to low income families. For 4 years I received services which included child care based on my income alone because my husband is not my son bio father. This year they decided it has to be household income……..they have cut us off. I have had to quit my job to stay home with my son, I cannot pay $9 per hour in child care when I only made $11…..I cannot even pay the deductions off of my cheque! After taxes and child support from my husbands income we are left with less than $24000 per year to survive. BELOW poverty line! Even though it states in the guidelines and laws “the guidelines have to be flexable to accomodate more complex situations” this little exerpt is ignored in family courts today. 3 years ago my son got sick and almost died, It took months to diagnose and a full year to recover, during this time I could not work. My husband did the best he could to keep up with the required payments but soon fell behind, we ended up in family court and tried an undue hardship claim. It was denied……the ex-wife and her spouse make combind income far greater, almost double than ours! the judge said “second families are no excuse to lower the required payments” How’s that for you? my son almost died and our claim was denied. Because child support is tax exempt, I have lost all of my support for my DISABLED child, because the child support guidelines are so high my child lives in poverty. There is a reason these men don’t pay their child support…..if anyone in the media had the time or gutts to examine this important issue they would find the reason is THEY SIMPLY CANNOT PAY THESE ABSURD AMOUNTS and still financially support themselves. It is time for the government to wake up and review these guidelines and laws, so that they can be equal and stop treating these payers like criminals. I ask you……can you survive on 35% of you wage or less? Yes, support your children, but the payments must be more reasonable.

Activist group on facebook, it is an open group check it out! Canadians for Family Law Reform