Parents have a legal obligation to support their children. Where the parents have separated that usually means that the parent having the child most of the time receives child support from the other parent.
The Federal Government has established Child Support Guidelines that determine the amount of child support payable. The amount of child support is based on the number of children being supported and the support payor’s income. These numbers are followed closely and absent some time of special hardship the amount of child support payable will be the amount set out in the Guidelines.
In addition to the Guideline amounts a parent may be required to contribute to special expenses. The Guidelines cover basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. Expenses above these necessities are considered to be ‘special’ and include, among other things, extracurricular activities, child care costs and medical/dental expenses not covered by a health care plan. The parents generally contribute to special expenses in proportion to their respective annual incomes.
Sometimes the amount of child support payable is reduced if the payor has the child at least 40% of the time. This is because the support payor has expenses for the child while the child is with the payor. The actual calculation of how much child support is payable in those circumstances is fairly complex. Basically, the amount each parent would have to pay to the other in under the Guidelines if each had full custody is set-off against each other and then pro-rated as for time spent with each parent.
5 comments:
What about those cases where guy fathers a child but is not aware until the mother contacts him several years later. Is he still responsible for paying for all that time when he didn't even know he was a father?
What about the cases where the primary caregiver remarries or otherwise has a household income far in excess of that of the child support payer?
Is it fair when one parent wants to spend 40% or more time with their child, but the other parent has a better, more expensive, lawyer and refuses to give up either custody or the 40% of time?
With sperm donor anonymity overturned by the BC supreme court, would the law now require sperm donors in BC to pay child support if asked?
I'm not a lawyer but I've heard of some pretty bizaar decisions that have been arrived at by using the "best interest of the child" method. The problem is that "the best interest of the child" means getting money from someone, anyone, even if it sometimes steps on the foot of good sense and fairness.
It doesn't take very long to live with a woman and their child(ren) before a man becomes the de-facto father even if no blood relationship exists (probably varies by jurisdiction). If the relationship ends and the birth father is a dead beat providing no child support, guess what? In the "best interests of the child" the kid should get supported by someone and the state now has another wallet to raid.
It would not surprise me one bit if a case comes up where an anonymous sperm doner gets hit with support payments based on the same principle.
The system is pretty rigged against the non primary caregiver, which in most cases is men. Men are never going to change the the system's bias so they have to be pretty darn sure they know what they are getting into when they choose their family situation.
Part of being a responsible man is about handling your business and not whining about life's unfairness. I can't stand the activists who complain that judges are all pro-mother. You are most likely the author of your own misery. Deal with the consequences.
Yeah, and child support and its enforcement comes directly out of Soviet Family Law, Article 81 (based on the Soviet Family laws of 1919, 1944 and 1969). Any wonder why fathers' rights are being trampled in Canada and the US? It's because the 2 gov'ts have embraced Soviet laws, which makes it unconstitutional from the "get-go". Any judge, child support worker, or any public official who takes an oath of office to uphold the respective constitutions of the US and/or Canada is in direct violation of their oaths by embracing and enforcing Soviet laws, which are impeachable offenses because they are crimes of treason.
what about second families, what about the children, outrageous support payments to first wife who has live in boyfriend with great income as well as her great income. New wife with disabled child, can't work due to child's disability. Dad can't pay full support, court doesn't care we cannot feed our "second family"
Post a Comment