Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: child support problems
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 11:16:07 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:

> In article <1992Dec17.191301.13365@oneb.almanac.bc.ca> kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc
> >In article <Bz6GMB.HpJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) wri
> 
> >Hardly - the only relevance wrt the pony is that you have locked onto it
> >because you feel a need to attack CP's for reasons of your own, and, lacking
> >any basis whatsoever for doing so, you continue to ride the pony.
> >
> >>If 10% of what she said is true, then she has a sympathetic and
> >>compelling story.  There's no need to claim that the ex should pay

> 	Ken,
> 
> 	No one has ever objected to the fact that this father should pay what
> 	the court ordered.  Not I nor Don, nor anyone.
> 
> 	However we have repeatedly heard seemingly accurate reports about how the
> 	government in your area is fair in it's awards.  15% sounds fair to me.
> 
> 	It is not that way here though.  Support awards are in the 25-35% of
> 	GROSS PAY, here, along with unfair property division, marital debt
> 	allocation, and visitation/custody allocation/enforcement.
> 
> 	In short men are, with the exception of the verbal title, viewed and
> 	treated as common criminals.  With outlawed practices like "debtors
>
>  	And oftentimes the amounts of these support awards put men on the brink
> 	of bankruptcy, stripping them of both financial and social dignity all
> 	because they couldn't live with the bitch they married;  no furthur offense.
> 	While at the same time the word "alimony" is embedded in the support order,
> 	and the ex retains control of his money, his life, and his kids.
> 
> 	So "pony stories" are not going to receive the international acceptance
> 	that you would like them to.  Nor are dancing lessons, ballet, hockey,
> 	or whatever.  Not when most of them have 2nd and third notices of bills
> 	at home because they have to hand ove 1/2 their take home pay so their
> 	ex can live in style, and keep them from seeing their kids.  Ponies, pools,
> 	and whatever are EXACTLY what we men in the U.S. see our over inflated
> 	support monies going to.
> 
       Alan ,

       Thank you for the above calm and informative post. (Whew!) No further
       offense taken...

       I believe in Canada, that support amounts are based on the incomes and
       related abilities of both parents.  I recently heard a story where an
       NCP won his case in having his arrears cancelled and child support
       orders cancelled, because he had been earning a net of only $900/mo.,
       and apparently was not seen as able to get a better job in the near
       future.  The judge ruled that (not out of sync with the court viewpoints
       that I'm aware of here) the NCP must be "self-sufficient" first, within
       reason, before having to pay support.

       As for alimony here, I know of only 2 cases (out of hundreds I'm familiar
       with), where there is, or has been, an order for Spousal Support.
       The first one was a temporary order for spousal support, so that the CP
       could take some job training courses.  It had been a "traditional
       marriage" where he worked and she raised the babies. When the CP completed
       her courses and found work, the spousal order was cancelled.  The NCP
       was seen as earning an income sufficient enough to provide for himself
       and the CP/children, though what that meant in dollars, I don't know.

       The second case I know of was my own.  I had asked only for $450/mo.
       child support (for our 2 kids), but my ex had refused to pay it.
       We went to court, where the Master looked at both of our paystubs, etc.,
       (my ex was clearing an average of $4618/mo. at the time), and said to
       my ex, "Not only will you pay your wife _$500/mo._ for child support,
       AND retro' for the past 6 mos. at that rate, BUT you will also pay HER
       $1500.00/mo. spousal support, which will be reviewed by this court in
       4 months!"

        As everyone prob'ly knows by now, I thought that was unfair and
        unreasonably high, so I told my ex all I wanted was the child support.
       As I told my lawyer, "I don't want to get rich off the guy, I just
       need some help with the children's expenses."  Anyway, he never even
       paid much of the CS, nevermind retro' CS or spousal.  We went back to
       court, after making a settlement agreement out of court, and I had all
       arrears for both CS and spousal support forgiven.  You know how much
       good that did me!

       wrt division of assets, etc., proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial
       home, are to the best of my knowledge, always, or almost always, split
       50/50.  Same with debts incurred during the marriage, in most cases
       anyway.  I have a dear friend, whose wife ran off with their 3 girls,
       quite unexpectedly (she went some 3,000 miles), and then filed for divorce.
       He, of course, had to retain a lawyer in her province (3,000 miles away),
       and he sued for custody.  In the end, although the courts acknowledged
       that she was not perhaps, as together as my friend, they felt that since
       the girls had continued to be with their mother while the courts were
       debating the issues, and they, sadly, felt that she was "Together" enough
       to manage the children, AND because in their obviously sexist viewpoint,
       they felt the children should be left with their mother, whenever possible,
       my friend lost that case.  I've known him 12 years, and you couldn't
       find a better dad if you tried!

       In their case, he did win his case wrt CS...he agreed to pay all $28,000
       of their joint debts, in return for reduced CS of $100/mo, per child. He
       then filed bankruptcy, but is doing extremely well now, and has upped
       his CS payments to $200/mo., per child.

       Some of the stuff I read from the U.S. on this net is pretty
       sad, wrt the plight of some NCPs.  Here, you're more likely
       to see the CP getting second and third notices on their bills,
       while many NCPs live with quite a bit of luxury, etc..
       Remember too, that in Canada, the CP pays the taxes on the CS,
       its a 100% deduction for the NCP.

       Nice to talk with ya', Al.

Lisa

               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!