Discussions

No offense, but I'd really like to see your grocery bills because I'm a single working mother of two teens and by no means extravagant, and there is NO WAY for our monthly grocery expenses to be $250. $500 is more like it, and I cook plenty from scratch. And if your monthly heat, water, hydro, home insurance are less than $300 I also don't think that's very realistic.  
Kids that are in school need school activities, sometimes lunches, field trips, etc. Also, to say that a person who is on assistance doesn't need any time to themselves is also unrealistic. What about education for herself (since everyone thinks she should be working), medical appointments, as well as when one kid has to go to the doctor and the others don't. This whole idea that being on assistance means that the family should be having a crappy standard of living or be ashamed is ridiculous. And not to say anything about the fact that child support is based on the income of the paying parent. I don't know why people don't get this. It's actually the paying parent's duty to contribute reasonably to the care and upbringing of his/her child. Period. It's not their business what other parents pay, or how the other parent spends their money as long as they are a good responsible parent. I don't get why there is so much support for the idea that a guy making $80,000 a year is in hardship if he pays more than $200 per month as he has been for FOUR YEARS!  
Instead, why not pick apart if this responsible mother who accommodates the non-custodial father according to him, spends her pennies the way granny did in the 30's???  
BECAUSE THAT'S REALISTIC right?

My point is both parents should be contributing equally. If one parent is paying $700 per month which is his/her half, there is no way it costs $1400 per month to raise one child. That's rediculus.

sledhead said "My point is both parents should be contributing equally. If one parent is paying $700 per month which is his/her half, there is no way it costs $1400 per month to raise one child. That's rediculus. "

Its fair. The $700 a month is based on the governments calculations on what is a reasonable amount a parent may spend on raising their children, which is approx 30% of the parents income. Keep in mind this includes all costs, rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, transportation, clothing, food, education, medical, dental, etc for that child. If the paying parent makes less, the amount is less.....would there be complaints about this amount if the paying parent made next to nothing and his ordered support was only $50...of course not. $700 may seem like alot, but that is from a parent who is pulling in over 80 000 a year.  
 
It is fair because it is based on income. If one parent has $10, the other has $100, but the child needs something that costs $20 is it fair that the one parent gives all they have and the other will have $90 left? 50/50 is not realistic or fair. Oh and if the father has equal shared time spent with his son, the ordered support will reflect that, since the cost of raising the child will be more evenly split thus reducing the amount of support to pay.  
 
Edited by Tamara79, 2016-02-02 11:03:13

Sledhead- the whole idea of contributing equally, is actually not reasonable. Like, if I contribute all my income to taking care of my family, and the other parent contributes only a small percentage why is that fair?  
What if the custodial parent gives up other opportunities in order to do all the caregiving? There are good reasons why the child support system is the way it is, and although the bureaucracy side doesn't work very well the evaluation part makes total sense.  
Should a guy making $80,000 a year only pay $200 per month towards the care of his child, then with the next child give the kid the lifestyle of a two parent family where one parent makes $80,00 and the other parent may also have a good income? How FAIR is that?

Ok first of all if your income is $80 000. Then yes. You should be paying a fair percentage of that income to the child so that the child has the same opportunities as if he still lived in the same household as yourself. I think it is a little silly to think you can split up from the mother and child and only have a responsibility to provide nothing but basic food and water type thing. That's not fair. Then have another child who is in your home therefore would have a better standard of living??? Why would you want your child to have less? I don't understand that!!!  
 
As has been said her assistance is also going to be reduced by the exact amount you pay. So she won't be coming out ahead here. She was clearly trying to be nice by agreeing to a very low amount each month but that left the government and therefore the tax payers covering your short fall. Again. Not fair.  
 
Let's not forget that the mother who has the child full time has less opportunities.. When you split if you went off on your own and her with the child it was much more difficult for her to get housing, a job, work toward a career, etc etc.  
 
It's not easy being a single mom at all. And I can't even wrap my head around how a father or any parent would not want to continue to provide for their child to the best of their abilities. Can a child be raised on much less. Well, yes, but if the non custodial parent is making a very good income is that fair? Should that parent not pay a percentage of their income to help raise the child's standard of living? It is not right for the father to have to pay no more than the basic minimum for survival and then leave it up to the mother to then have to provide everything else over and above for a better living standard really don't understand!! If you can afford more than the $200 a month and clearly they believe you can then I don't get why you woulsnt want to! You would rather your child have nothing but the basics and the taxpayers paying to raise your child when you can afford it??!!  

the problem with saying the father should up the standard of living of the child only is true if the mother isnt on SA because they claw back dollar for dollar so say SA gives mom and child 1000 (have no idea what they actually get) but 1000-700= 300 check from sa, so 300-700=1000 & 1000-200= 800 check from SA 800sa ch +200 support =1000, no standard of living is raised for the child either way but now dad is supporting the mom instead of the tax payer which is great except mom is an adult and is not dads dependent  
 
there is an argument to be made about availability of opportunities for someone tied down with a child full time as apposed to someone who isnt and that is a hard one to fix, what i would recommend, and thin k the best arrangement for all is that custody is split 50/50 and if one person cant actually look after the child then day care should be found or day care rates would be paid to the other parent for those days  
 
custody arrangements are always hard as their are many factors but i would say that the guys do get screwed lots, just like in this case 80k a year is taxed at a high rate so they should actually be basing support on after tax income and factors like how many dependents you have, if i have a second child then yes the whole family has to make sacrifices, same if i lose a job ect  
 
ps it doesnt matter what % of your income goes to supporting your kid, once separated then yes the cost burden should be 50/50 including houseing and stuff but a kid doesnt cost $1400, my whole family only cost 2000 and we live quite well  
 
Edited by traveller, 2016-02-02 16:52:41

I may have missed this, as I only scanned this thread, but why is the mother on social assistance? Can't work, disabled, etc?

In this case the paying parent is expecting a child in the new relationship, who can be claimed as a dependent. The new partner will either be contributing financially or be claimed as a dependent. The choices dad makes after already having a child are his choices, so why should he be complaining? Obviously the ex was trying to reduce the financial burden on dad, but rather than appreciate that there is nothing but complaining.  
 
It seems to me that dad is happy with the custody arrangement, so I'm not sure why people are suggesting he have 50/50 joint custody? This is a preschool aged kid, dad obviously works, and mom is at home. She also has other kids, so taking the child half the time will not necessarily free her up for employment etc.  
 
The system isn't perfect, but there are good reasons why it is the way it is, in most cases. This fellow hasn't been screwed over by ANYONE.

traveller said "the problem with saying the father should up the standard of living of the child only is true if the mother isnt on SA because they claw back dollar for dollar so say SA gives mom and child 1000 (have no idea what they actually get) but 1000-700= 300 check from sa, so 300-700=1000 & 1000-200= 800 check from SA 800sa ch +200 support =1000, no standard of living is raised for the child either way but now dad is supporting the mom instead of the tax payer which is great except mom is an adult and is not dads dependent     there is an argument to be made about availability of opportunities for someone tied down with a child full time as apposed to someone who isnt and that is a hard one to fix, what i would recommend, and thin k the best arrangement for all is that custody is split 50/50 and if one person cant actually look after the child then day care should be found or day care rates would be paid to the other parent for those days     custody arrangements are always hard as their are many factors but i would say that the guys do get screwed lots, just like in this case 80k a year is taxed at a high rate so they should actually be basing support on after tax income and factors like how many dependents you have, if i have a second child then yes the whole family has to make sacrifices, same if i lose a job ect     ps it doesnt matter what % of your income goes to supporting your kid, once separated then yes the cost burden should be 50/50 including houseing and stuff but a kid doesnt cost $1400, my whole family only cost 2000 and we live quite well     Edited by traveller, 2016-02-02 16:52:41"

Exactly my point, I'm just not good at putting it in words.

Traveller, make sense. It doesnt matter what percentage of your income goes to supporting the child but all costs should be 50/50? Why?  
Example, a 35 year old man with savings, established career, high income partners a 23 year old woman with grade 10 education, some service industry employment background, and no local family. They stay together 4 years, having a child after a year and a half. They both share the values that mom should be home with young kids, and mom is an attentive, nurturing parent. When they then split amicably (maybe dad is a workaholic, maybe not monogamous, maybe mom doesn't feel the same after becoming a parent, whatever), does that mean they no longer have the shared values that it's good for mom to be home with young kids? Should dad then have almost no responsibility for his own child, almost no financial impacts? Sacrificing for our kids is actually one of the things parents do that makes us know how precious they are to us. A parent that thinks 10% of a $7000 paycheque is the same as 70% of a $1000 paycheque will never understand sacrifice. The word sacrifice also means 'to make holy'. We make our loved ones more dear and special through this process. I Pity the parent who doesn't realize the opportunity of sacrifice.  
 
Responsibility isn't just a bill.  
 
Or think of this, if I make $300,000 per year at a corporate job that keeps me very busy, and my ex is a good attentive parent but really can't hold down a job that well, and my schedule requires travel and long hours, should I take the kid away from him half the time and give the kid to a nanny while I work, just so I dont have to pay a generous amount of child support? Or treat my ex like a paid babysitter? Or should I be grateful to have a stable situation for my with an ex I can get along with? And if I hook up with another guy, should I then decide not to support my kid the same way anymore? If I did I think I'd be a shitty person.

So tater, what you're saying is the parent that doesn't have primary custody should pay for everything? Yep. Sounds fair to me. So with this money scenario you're saying, shouldn't the parent that has more income have custody so the child can have a better means of living?

I can understand that the OP is angry about paying more than he would like to. It can be difficult to identify a target for anger when things become a little tougher and are beyond our control. I am certain the ex is simply doing what she is told so not trying to screw the OP over on purpose. Unfortunately, she has lost the opportunity to be a negotiator as she is on assistance. The current national standard has judged that he should pay $700.00/month to the primary caregiver of his child. If that primary caregiver is/was self sufficient, they have a right to accept less if they choose. That could be a financial win for the OP but the primary caregiver is not in a position to offer that. If anything, the OP could have some animosity towards his ex for being in a position to have less control over her financial affairs. However, I see little room to gripe about paying what is nationally seen as reasonable for a child he had a part in creating.  
 
 
 
Edited by CommonTater, 2016-02-02 21:40:00

sledhead said "So tater, what you're saying is the parent that doesn't have primary custody should pay for everything? Yep. Sounds fair to me. So with this money scenario you're saying, shouldn't the parent that has more income have custody so the child can have a better means of living? "

You are confusing the parent that has more money as the one who could create a better life. If when together the mother and father decide they want a stay at home parent and not a daycare because they believe that is what is best for their child, why does what they believe is best for the child change when they are no longer together? Where does affection, nurturing, teaching, loving, quality time come in? Or is it money that makes a child feel loved, and instill values?  
In my family I have seen one parent who offers to pay more so mom can continue to stay home. I have also seen a mom who gets less than 1/3 of what would be court ordered just to maintain a good relationship with dad.  
Nothing is ever black and white in these situations, but when one is motivated by what is costs monetarily rather than what is best for the child the real loser in the situation is the child.

If you have a stable home and reliable income would you consider going for custody?

obviously I do NOT think that having more income means the person should have primary custody. In fact that is the kind of financial abuse that was rampant in the past, and which has created the need for equity. In the past, when men divorced they typically hot custody of the children and they were regarded as property, and it was found very traumatic and damaging to children. It could very well be that the person with higher income has less time to spend providing the very care you speak of, isn't that true?  
In my example, I proposed that I was the higher earning parent and my exhusband was the primary caregiver. Why would it make sense for me to be the primary caregiver as well, if he is a good parent and I have good access to my child?  
Money doesn't equal better parenting, and it also doesn't equal getting to do whatever you want. By your argument, only the rich should have children anyway, right?  
 
As for the posters ex not being in a position to negotiate.... it's not in the best interests of her kid for her to receive such a small amount towards her sons support. Why would you even suggest that she SHOULD negotiate less support for the care of her son?  
 
My own experience is of being the primary breadwinner AND the primary caregiver while still married, and after. Do the tables do much for me? No. But I totally support their use. I can see how a person would feel bullied if they had to "negotiate" with an ex with whom they may have a history of intimidation or powerlessness, conflict or codependency.  
Regardless of gender.  
 
I feel really sad for children today.

responsibility isnt just about having a bill but it does include balancing bills and quality of life and a mother on welfare isnt doing great at that, the fact is that child support does NOT better the standard of living when mom is on welfare so this statement is mute  
 
As for the posters ex not being in a position to negotiate.... it's not in the best interests of her kid for her to receive such a small amount towards her sons support. Why would you even suggest that she SHOULD negotiate less support for the care of her son?  
 
your examples also only are taking the side of the mother who decided with the father to stay at home, is it fair that dad still support mom when maybe they split because she wasnt that attentive to the kids, she said she wanted to stay home but she always was out partying and slept all day so he got sick of supporting a deadbeat and divorced her, their is many different scenarios not all of them where mom is innocent  
 
furthermore please compare after tax income to after tax income how much does mom get really, with all the gst child tax, beer and popcorn money plus welfare? dads take home wage isnt 7k it 4500/mnth that he WORKS for regardless that still is decent BUT I do think that it is fair for her to have to pay half of the expense of their JOINT decision to have kids, if she has other kids with other dads that make her stuck at home then that was her choice, it has no bearing on anything else so it shouldnt be taken into account  
 
 
in your account you almost want to penalize dad for working, not giving im custody ect, and if he had 50/50 and the kids needed care they are maybe in the care of grandma or he can pay her day care wages which is what shed be worth to stay at home on his days  
 
you have to remember it was also her choice not to be employable and to have kids so now she has to live with the consequences  
 
ps if he was some big wig he would probably pay big wig day care rates but she should have to work for her support because shes an adult, period  

traveller said "responsibility isnt just about having a bill but it does include balancing bills and quality of life and a mother on welfare isnt doing great at that, the fact is that child support does NOT better the standard of living when mom is on welfare so this statement is mute     As for the posters ex not being in a position to negotiate.... it's not in the best interests of her kid for her to receive such a small amount towards her sons support. Why would you even suggest that she SHOULD negotiate less support for the care of her son?     your examples also only are taking the side of the mother who decided with the father to stay at home, is it fair that dad still support mom when maybe they split because she wasnt that attentive to the kids, she said she wanted to stay home but she always was out partying and slept all day so he got sick of supporting a deadbeat and divorced her, their is many different scenarios not all of them where mom is innocent     furthermore please compare after tax income to after tax income how much does mom get really, with all the gst child tax, beer and popcorn money plus welfare? dads take home wage isnt 7k it 4500/mnth that he WORKS for regardless that still is decent BUT I do think that it is fair for her to have to pay half of the expense of their JOINT decision to have kids, if she has other kids with other dads that make her stuck at home then that was her choice, it has no bearing on anything else so it shouldnt be taken into account       in your account you almost want to penalize dad for working, not giving im custody ect, and if he had 50/50 and the kids needed care they are maybe in the care of grandma or he can pay her day care wages which is what shed be worth to stay at home on his days     you have to remember it was also her choice not to be employable and to have kids so now she has to live with the consequences     ps if he was some big wig he would probably pay big wig day care rates but she should have to work for her support because shes an adult, period   "

Of course at this point it is just an assumption that it is her choice to not be employable. She could be on social assistance due to a disability which is not her choice.  
 
As for this discussion, there doesnt have to be a discussion about the mothers income or lack thereof, if the other parent who is also responsible for the child becomes more active in the childs life. Clearly he is capable of supporting children and having a family considering he has another baby on the way.  
 
Child support is reduced if the paying parent has increased or equal custody of the child. Of course, if his child being on social assistance is an issue, he could also pursue full custody and not pay child support at all since he'd be raising the child himself.

Wow I started this topic a few months back and now it's starting to blow up this week! All good info here and good debate back and forth. Just to answer a few quick questions I seen asked..  
No she doesn't have a disibility. But she keeps having kids with different guys the past few years then breaking up with them. She's at 3 kids with 3 guys now. I don't mean to get personal here. So I will move on from that.  
My biggest issue is that years after I make a new life and decide to bring another kid into my life that this huge new amount comes up. Sure I make alright money but I've bought a house and vehicle and have a few other expenses I take care of. If I would have known my child support was going to increase so much I would have been more careful with the finances and bills I now have. It's tough to just say... Sell my house or move other finances and loans around. I only made some of this debt based on what I could afford at the time.  
 
Anyways, some people are saying if I get 50/50 custody I can get the payments lowered? Right now all I have is visits and access as agreed upon by my ex. As I said though she is more than fair and I have no complaints about that. I've never went to court for custody however as i know they always side with the mom 90% of the time and I didn't have the money to get a lawyer and pay court fees. Plus she always got so defensive when I would mention custody to her. So I figured for the sake of a civil relationship and so my son didn't have to have parents who fight I backed off.  
 
If someone could confirm this for me I would appreciate it. I thought with her being on MEP, it can never be lowered no matter what. Custody or not. Only if I were to lose my job.

You could get 50-50 if you go for it in court. A few reasons if could be denied is if there is a valid reason that changing the current arrangement will disrupt the child's livelihood.... And not just inconvenience, but a valid reason. This is more so for very young children & if the other parent wasn't around much at the beginning. The other reason is if she can prove that you are unfit, which is very difficult, especially if you get him on weekends already.  
As for getting rid of child support with 50-50, this isn't true. You would actually pay the different in income between yours and hers, and if she's on assistance, it's likely a very vast different and after court costs, you'll likely only pay a little less. You can look up the amount on the Manitoba tables if you know her true annual income. Child tax benefits don't count as income, but UCCB does.

I realize that if you'd known how much you really should've been paying, you wouldn't have got such an expensive truck etc., but now you DO know. I'm sorry and its a shock for sure, but the fact is that your ex protected you from that expense. She basically PUT $500/ month into your budget, and what you did with it wasn't all that wise. Now even though she's been very easy to get along with and in fact has taken care of YOU financially, you're considering ways of trying to evade your rightful responsibility and change a healthy situation only for the fact of money.  
 
It's your exes choice to have kids with other guys after you, and your choice to have kids with another woman after her. She has the consequences, and now you finally will too.  
 
MEP can have a recalculation order if your income changes significantly. You and your ex can also do up a seperation agreement, maybe mb mediation services can help with this, wouldn't hurt to ask and they are free.  
 
if you have a good relationship with your ex, it's priceless, and I would think long and hard before jeopardizing that for the sake of money. Especially When, let's face it, you know you should've been paying more all along. There's some woman haters on here, maybe they had a bad experience, but you have honestly NOT had a bad experience, and to do the things they suggest is likely to complicate your life, complicate your sons life, and create conflict that has the potential to hurt people including your son. And it's unlikely to create less financial burden for you. you won't qualify for financial aid and she will. Is it better to spend your money on lawyers creating conflict?

Well sounds like there may be some bias posters out there. This thread has turned into a man hater thread and a thread about "entitlement" rather than what the original poster had intended on it being perhaps and seeing some of these comments have me sitting here with my jaw to the floor. While I agree if there is a valid reason for her to be on assistance the other parent needs to support the child. What I can see for the poster as frustrating is the fact she keeps having babies but yet for some of you, the problem his him not owning up to his responsibilities. Like wow!!! Sounds like here is a guy....makes decent money....had an agreement with the mother of his child that he thought was working.....come on.. if this it what he was paying for years then why would he think anything was wrong with the amount of mom doesn't say anything? Because he reads minds now??? But of course.....its ok for her to continue having children. Why is it ok for her but not for him exactly? Sounds like he knows his responsibilities more than she does.....Child support laws seem to concentrate a lot of efforts on what the family would look like if still together but the law can't assume the family was ever together in the first place! It has to be fair for all involved. With it being after tax income in this case with three different dads and the tax credits.....wow what a pay day!!!!!!!! There has to be a different solution for all parties. As for child support laws in general it needs to be revamped. Period.

Betty1818, I think everyone has personal bias in this thread, but considering that the fellow himself said that his ex has been nothing but accommodating, I don't know wny anyone is going after her AT ALL. If she is on assistance or if she is working has NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM PAYING HIS CHILD SUPPORT. Her source of income doesn't mean her kid does or doesn't deserve and need the support of the other parent.  
 
There is entitlement here, the child is entitled to reasonable support from his parents.  
 
Just like it's not his ex's business if he has another kid as long as it isn't a detriment to her kid, it's none of his business if SHE has other kids, as long as it's not a detriment to his kid.  
 
Who is hating on men here exactly? I'm not, I love men! ;) But I don't love men who don't think they should be taking care of their responsibilities, or who are so immature that they have no idea how much things cost. This fellow made some bad financial decisions obviously, he didn't bother to learn about parenting responsibility and he didn't realize how good he had it. Well, he's got nothing to complain about having been paying only $200/month with a take home income of approximately $4800! lol He probably paid more than that on beer!  
 
Betty1818 said:  
"While I agree if there is a valid reason for her to be on assistance the other parent needs to support the child."  
 
The other parent ALWAYS needs to support their child, not only if the mother has a "valid" reason for being on assistance! Ugh  
 
Guys, just to let you know, nothing is sexier than a guy who pays his tabled amount without complaint!!!!

Sorry yes the other person should always support the child but the amount does not need to reflect that of a breaking point. Oh and wherever you get a take home of 4800 making 80k a year is off......by about 750 dollars.....trust me on that one. I don't have the time or energy to get into a large discussion. The poor guy on here is getting crapped on for thinking he is doing good by his child to find out apparently he is not "meeting responsibilities" accordingly. Sounds like you are a recipient of a tabled child support payer who has a lot of experience with the system. Good for you.

Income tax for a single person with those earnings is all I took off, CPP, EI, Pension etc would all be additional deductions, but are all to the benefit of the employee.  
$700/month reflects a breaking point?  
 
As for my experience, like I said earlier in the thread I was the primary breadwinner AND primary caregiver in my previous relationship. My ex and I always lived modestly. I have never made the kind of money the poster makes, but I have been raising three kids with very little child support, and no moral support. My ex became violent. He couldn't get along with me and was unstable. He wouldn't commit to taking care of the kids but insisted they should live with him 50/50 while he was on drugs, then he'd drop the kids off crying without explanation. I didn't claim court costs and I did all the work to get the divorce done. He took a split of my work pension for $19000 and then didn't pay any child support or see his kids for 8 months, taking off to BC with his gf.  
 
My ex worked under the table and we didn't have an agreement for the first two years. We've been split for over 6 years and in the past two years he's finally been paying a modest child support for our two younger kids. And do I hate men? Nope.  
 
Your impression that I am myself some kind of welfare queen who knows how to play the system, with baby daddies paying my way in life is totally off base lol