Child Support

[wdwmom3]

After reading more and more of this thread I'm really noticing how there seems to be a difference in how Canadians and Americans view child support. In canada the rational behind how child support is paid is that each parent has the responsibility to financially support their children. The guidelines in Canada were developed with the mindset that even when in a relationship a certain % of someone's income would go towards expenses related to caring for a child. (notice i said expenses related to, not just of the child, it is a given that any normal household expenses relate to caring for a child). It is not a simple formula. The guidelines take into account low incomes meaning someone with minimal income would not be required to pay much support (unless the courts feel they are purposely keeping their income low).

The whole mentality of both parents being responsible is why only the non-custodians income is considered. What he pays me is based on his income. If it not enough for me to get by then it's up to me to make up the difference. And likewise he doesn't pay less just because I am well off.

It's just a set amount that I get each month. There is no talk about what I spent on our son. It is understood that i contribute to his care as well and since it's my responsibility to care for him, it's my choice on how all of my money is spent.

After reading this thread I'm happier more then ever that we have such a simple and fair system here in Canada.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

True, but then she was technically getting 100% of one pie (her income, whatever that is ) and then 26% of the other pie ( his income) she will continue to get whatever her income is, and then will also get 76% of his.

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the point of her getting the 50% of his retirement is because she was a SAHM? If she was, then she was "working " for free all those years as a housekeeper, mother, maid, chauffer...

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

Ok so then I should not buy couches, tvs, or have a nice pleasant house for my children. Or a kitchen table and chairs for them to sit on or have a phone for them to talk to their friends, or computer to use, or tv for them to watch. Lmao.

Everything in my house is for my family as a whole. I don't think my kids would be too happy sitting on the floor lol.

That is not at all what I said. I said that you shouldn't buy that with your child support money. Child support money goes to SUPPORT your CHILD. You use that money to buy him clothes. You use it to buy him milk. You use it to furnish his room. You don't use it to buy pretty things for yourself that he gets to use. In America, we call that Spousal Support and many states do not have that.

After reading more and more of this thread I'm really noticing how there seems to be a difference in how Canadians and Americans view child support. In canada the rational behind how child support is paid is that each parent has the responsibility to financially support their children. The guidelines in Canada were developed with the mindset that even when in a relationship a certain % of someone's income would go towards expenses related to caring for a child. (notice i said expenses related to, not just of the child, it is a given that any normal household expenses relate to caring for a child). It is not a simple formula. The guidelines take into account low incomes meaning someone with minimal income would not be required to pay much support (unless the courts feel they are purposely keeping their income low).

The whole mentality of both parents being responsible is why only the non-custodians income is considered. What he pays me is based on his income. If it not enough for me to get by then it's up to me to make up the difference. And likewise he doesn't pay less just because I am well off.

It's just a set amount that I get each month. There is no talk about what I spent on our son. It is understood that i contribute to his care as well and since it's my responsibility to care for him, it's my choice on how all of my money is spent.

After reading this thread I'm happier more then ever that we have such a simple and fair system here in Canada.

Exactly what do you think Americans view child support as? From what I have read, it looks like Americans see child support as something to support the child and some Canadians (certainly not all on this thread) seem to think that it is to support the child and whatever the parent wants to buy that the kid might possibly end up using at some point.

 

[wdwmom3]

That is not at all what I said. I said that you shouldn't buy that with your child support money. Child support money goes to SUPPORT your CHILD. You use that money to buy him clothes. You use it to buy him milk. You use it to furnish his room. You don't use it to buy pretty things for yourself that he gets to use. In America, we call that Spousal Support and many states do not have that.

Exactly what do you think Americans view child support as? From what I have read, it looks like Americans see child support as something to support the child and some Canadians (certainly not all on this thread) seem to think that it is to support the child and whatever the parent wants to buy that the kid might possibly end up using at some point.

I think people need to take a step back and think about what it really costs to raise a child. It is more then the clothes on their backs and the food they eat or the furniture in their rooms. When people are together expenses are looked at as expenses of a FAMILY. Not individual people. The same thing continues after a breakup. There are expenses of a FAMILY. I don't sit around and think about what I have spent on separate members of the family. I spend what needs to be spent to have a nice home for everyone to a enjoy.

My ex pays support based on what he makes. The courts feel that is how much he should be paying to support his child. It has nothing to do with what is bought for the child. I'm given a set amount each month and that goes into my bank account with all my other money. Anything that needs to be paid for is just paid for. I'm sorry but I just can't follow your logic. I can't understand how expenses of a household are not expenses of a family. I can't understand how you can take the money you spend and allocate it to different people? And I have an accounting degree lol. Maybe I'm not getting something.

 

[wdwmom3]

Basically my ex gives me $x each month. Which is based entirely on his income. And I use that money along with my pay to pay for whatever expenses I may have or put into savings which will probably be used for my kids at some point.

 

[mamabear0222]

That is not at all what I said. I said that you shouldn't buy that with your child support money. Child support money goes to SUPPORT your CHILD. You use that money to buy him clothes. You use it to buy him milk. You use it to furnish his room. You don't use it to buy pretty things for yourself that he gets to use. In America, we call that Spousal Support and many states do not have that.

Exactly what do you think Americans view child support as? From what I have read, it looks like Americans see child support as something to support the child and some Canadians (certainly not all on this thread) seem to think that it is to support the child and whatever the parent wants to buy that the kid might possibly end up using at some point.

The funny thing is I'm Canadian and agree with your opinion 100%.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

 

[MizTink]

After reading more and more of this thread I'm really noticing how there seems to be a difference in how Canadians and Americans view child support. In canada the rational behind how child support is paid is that each parent has the responsibility to financially support their children. The guidelines in Canada were developed with the mindset that even when in a relationship a certain % of someone's income would go towards expenses related to caring for a child. (notice i said expenses related to, not just of the child, it is a given that any normal household expenses relate to caring for a child). It is not a simple formula. The guidelines take into account low incomes meaning someone with minimal income would not be required to pay much support (unless the courts feel they are purposely keeping their income low).

The whole mentality of both parents being responsible is why only the non-custodians income is considered. What he pays me is based on his income. If it not enough for me to get by then it's up to me to make up the difference. And likewise he doesn't pay less just because I am well off.

It's just a set amount that I get each month. There is no talk about what I spent on our son. It is understood that i contribute to his care as well and since it's my responsibility to care for him, it's my choice on how all of my money is spent.

After reading this thread I'm happier more then ever that we have such a simple and fair system here in Canada.

this is exactly what child support is suposed to be, not just in canada. the only time you have idiotic comments about exactly how the money is spent is from men who resent the mom so much that he's afraid "his money" is benefitting her. someone that simple minded is impossible to reason with. if i didn't have his THREE kids i wouldn't need this 4 bedroom house, my electric, water, groceries, etc would be drastically reduced. when that payment comes to me it goes into my checking account. he thinks (and has told the kids) the money is STRICTLY for the kids. as in it doesn't go towards any bills. he wants it in their hands for them to shop at the mall with. now tell me that isn't jiust IGNORANT. and you can imagine the problems it caused in the beginning when he would tell the kids that he just sent me $300 to give them. it was hard explaining to the kids (especially the girls) that their dad was just being a jerk and no, we aren't going to the mall!

 

[MizTink]

as long as the kids are taken care of it's absolutely none of the non-custodial parent's business how ANY of the money is spent....it's not seperate money. it is household money and out of that bills are paid, clothes are bought, haircuts are paid for, gas goes in the car, food is bought, etc....
how do you seperate which money paid for mom's nails and which paid for the kid's shoes???? you don't. the custodial parent has a responsibility to make sure the kids are taken care of and have the things they need.

 

[mamabear0222]

I think people need to take a step back and think about what it really costs to raise a child. It is more then the clothes on their backs and the food they eat or the furniture in their rooms. When people are together expenses are looked at as expenses of a FAMILY. Not individual people. The same thing continues after a breakup. There are expenses of a FAMILY. I don't sit around and think about what I have spent on separate members of the family. I spend what needs to be spent to have a nice home for everyone to a enjoy.

My ex pays support based on what he makes. The courts feel that is how much he should be paying to support his child. It has nothing to do with what is bought for the child. I'm given a set amount each month and that goes into my bank account with all my other money. Anything that needs to be paid for is just paid for. I'm sorry but I just can't follow your logic. I can't understand how expenses of a household are not expenses of a family. I can't understand how you can take the money you spend and allocate it to different people? And I have an accounting degree lol. Maybe I'm not getting something.

Essentially your ex husband is paying for your entire FAMILY then and not just the support of his child. Your new FAMILY is not his concern however the wellbeing and support of your child is. I also have an accounting degree and imo its simple math. You had a child together. The child is 50% HIS responsibility. Not the other 5 members of your household. (Just a number I'm throwing out there I have no idea how many are in your family)

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

 

[JessB320]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the point of her getting the 50% of his retirement is because she was a SAHM? If she was, then she was "working " for free all those years as a housekeeper, mother, maid, chauffer...

No nothing said about her being a SAHM

Even if she was I still don't see why she should get more than 50% of his pension

 

[wdwmom3]

Essentially your ex husband is paying for your entire FAMILY then and not just the support of his child. Your new FAMILY is not his concern however the wellbeing and support of your child is. I also have an accounting degree and imo its simple math. You had a child together. The child is 50% HIS responsibility. Not the other 5 members of your household. (Just a number I'm throwing out there I have no idea how many are in your family)

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

If he's was paying 50% of the cost to raise my son he would be paying me a lot more each month lmao. What he pays is based on his income. It's not a % of his income. In Canada we have tables where it says if you make this much and have one child then you pay $x. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to raise my son. I'm responsible for figuring that out since I'm the custodial parent. What he pays goes in my bank account with all my other money and I pay whatever bills I have.

Breaking down what expenses belongs to which family member is just crazy.

 

[wdwmom3]

To those who think that those receiving child support should have to show what the money was spent on, or think that it should only be spent on things just for the child. I'm just curious how many of you have been a custodial parent who receives support? Not meaning anything by that question I'm just curious.

 

[JessB320]

To those who think that those receiving child support should have to show what the money was spent on, or think that it should only be spent on things just for the child. I'm just curious how many of you have been a custodial parent who receives support? Not meaning anything by that question I'm just curious.

We are the custodial household (DH being the custodial parent to our oldest three) we would be more than happy to show where/ what child support was spent on, since bio mom has never paid it and just ignores the support paperwork i guess at the moment that would be pretty easy to do

 

[wdwmom3]

We are the custodial household (DH being the custodial parent to our oldest three) we would be more than happy to show where/ what child support was spent on, since bio mom has never paid it and just ignores the support paperwork i guess at the moment that would be pretty easy to do

Lol. I was kind of thinking the same thing since I don't get that much support it would be easy. I just need to show him the daycare bill. Lol.

But honestly say she was paying. Wouldn't you be a little offended is she started questioning how you spent that money? And we all know what things can get like. I'm sure she would argue that you didn't need to spend certain things or you were waiting the money etc. don't you think if should just be left up to you guys?

 

[aprilgail2]

I think some people would be singing a different tune if they were trying to live off of 24% of their income.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

I agree- I would not be happy if half of the money I worked 30 years for was going to someone that had the pleasure of sitting home not working for 30 years! And I get so tired of getting paid for being housekeeper/taxi driver/ cook line- working parents do the same exact thing just in a more efficient manor! We squeeze it all into the time after work.

Some of us would have done the calculation of our after retirement income before we retired. When we saw it was too little, we would have not retired.

.

I am going to retire shortly- and I assure you where I work you do not get a pay cut when you retire LOL- my pension will be more monthly than my weekly take home salary so he wouldn't have made anymore had he kept working. I can't wait to retire so I can get a raise!

 

[mamabear0222]

But honestly say she was paying. Wouldn't you be a little offended is she started questioning how you spent that money? And we all know what things can get like. I'm sure she would argue that you didn't need to spend certain things or you were waiting the money etc. don't you think if should just be left up to you guys?

Curious as to why someone would be offended. If the money is being used 100% for the child as it should be...not sure what the issue would be.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

 

[NHdisneylover]

I agree- I would not be happy if half of the money I worked 30 years for was going to someone that had the pleasure of sitting home not working for 30 years! And I get so tired of getting paid for being housekeeper/taxi driver/ cook line- working parents do the same exact thing just in a more efficient manor! We squeeze it all into the time after work.

I don't work. We move every 2-4 years for my husband's job. I was a teacher, but got my license when they did not transfer between states at all. Each move would have required several thousands dollars and about a year of classes to get re-certified, just to move again.

We did stay in New Hampshire four years and I was bale to work as a librarian, which I loved. I had to leave that when we moved here to Germany--where I legally cannot work with my spouse's visa.

I am not just sitting around eating bon bons. I have sacrificed a lot (I enjoyed my career) to support my husband's career as he moves within it. I am the one who holds it all together for the family and coordinates moves, finds housing and doctors and schools, etc at every new local.

I truly believe it will never be an issue between us--but if God forbid my husband were to leave me someday--yes I 100% do believe I deserve half of that pension. He wouldn't be making half what he is now had I not given up my income and fulfilling career to do what we needed to give him the best opportunities for his.

I know MANY people (mostly women, but a few men) in similar situations (including many military spouses--who are moving as their spouse is stationed at one place then another--and thank goodness that there are families willing to do this for our country!).

 

[wdwmom3]

Curious as to why someone would be offended. If the money is being used 100% for the child as it should be...not sure what the issue would be.

Sent from my Samsung S3 using DISBoards

Because no one should have the right to comment on how I spend money as long as the kids are taken care of.

And people can't even agree on what support shoul e used for. Can I use it to pay for part of my mortgage or rent. Cause my ex thinks I should live in low income housing in a bad part of town, but I spend the money to live in a nice part of town. Can I spend it on food? My ex thinks he can eat Mac and cheese everyday but I might want to buy him organic food. Can I spend it on clothes? Cause my ex thinks I shouldn't have to buy clothes and should be able to find hand me downs. Can I spend it on gas to drive him to daycare and activities (oh and part of my car payment)? Cause my ex thinks I should take the bus. Oh and what if I drive to get my haircut on the same tank of gas? Do I claim half of it? Oh and what if my ioven breaks down I need to cook my sons food? Or my washing machine? Do I claim part of that since I need to wash his clothes too?

Cause how would I show what the money was spent on? And what if he doesn't like what I spent the money on.

And if you think I'm being silly I have already been told to sell my house, take the bus, buy all second hand clothes, etc. And the funny thing is even if I spent less he would still pay the same $.

 

[Turn the Page]

That is not at all what I said. I said that you shouldn't buy that with your child support money. Child support money goes to SUPPORT your CHILD. You use that money to buy him clothes. You use it to buy him milk. You use it to furnish his room. You don't use it to buy pretty things for yourself that he gets to use. In America, we call that Spousal Support and many states do not have that.


Exactly what do you think Americans view child support as? From what I have read, it looks like Americans see child support as something to support the child and some Canadians (certainly not all on this thread) seem to think that it is to support the child and whatever the parent wants to buy that the kid might possibly end up using at some point.

I'm sorry but I just can't see the logic here. I could see your point if the child was being deprived of decent clothes to wear or enough food to eat while the custodial parent is going on vacation every month and buying designer clothes for themselves. However, in many cases the custodial parent does not get enough in support to cover all of the childs expenses which means the custodial parent is also providing financial support to raise the child. As long as the child's needs are all met the noncustodial parent shouldn't have much of a say as to where the money goes.

In my case, my ex refused to work or pay anything, his parents paid the $200 a month I got in child support. I worked a full time job to pay for our living expenses. DD's daycare alone was approximately $500 a month. Not counting the two bedroom house I needed as opposed to a one bedroom or studio apartment or the cost of her formula or diapers, electricity to keep the lights and heat on, water, clothes, car insurance, gas, and a myriad of other expenses raising a child entails.

He made the comment several times that as long as DD had food and diapers she didn't need anything else and he was not going to pay my electric bill. Seeing as how what his parents paid in child support covered about two weeks of day care every month and absolutely nothing else if he had asked me to show him where my child support was going I would have been furious.

 

[Turn the Page]

It's kind of similar to how I had no right to ask my ex what he was doing with his money as long as he was paying child support...which of course he never did so I asked him that all the time. However, if he paid his support regularly, on time, and in full it is none of my business what he does with his cash after that. If he doesn't and claims he can't afford it, yes it is my business.