"if this is how he wants to play it (hmmm, asking her to support her child), then it's going to get real ugly!"

I have to laugh. I bet your husband is shaking in his boots.

It will get ugly--for her.

Has she ever heard of 'imputation'. She's very likely to be imputed with at least minimum wage. And then, child support will be assessed and she will owe.

When my husband initially filed for an order, it was because BM was threatening to not let him see his daughter at all. They had 50/50 by verbal agreement. (as long as he didn't piss her off or if he did what she demanded) Well, they both asked for primary custody. The only issue my husband brought up was custody/visitation. He wanted an order so BM can no longer threaten to keep his daughter away from him. As soon as she was served with that, she hired an attorney and filed for child support. (she also wanted them to include my income with my husbands) She told DH she was going to get full custody and since she didn't have a job, he'd have to pay a lot of child support based on her zero income and only get his daughter every other weekend, instead of every other week. After a trial, the time share remained 50/50 and the court imputed minimum wage to her. She only got $286 a month. She expected over $1k. Three weeks later, meets new BF, moves away without telling DH and gives him full custody. (She told him that he can keep the $286 he's supposed to pay her since he has his daughter all the time now) Then, In December, she said she was working for UPS but we don't know if she did or not. When she had SD for her 10 days on Winter Break, she told her they gave her three weeks off. She left seven months ago and hasn't given him a dime. The last time he asked her to pay her share of counseling, she told him that she takes care of it when SD is with her and he has to take care of it when SD is with him. (umm, she only has her on three weekends a month. She goes to doctor & counselor during the week, not weekend. duh!)

Yes, my husband is shaking his head more than he's shaking in his boots. It will be ugly for her if she does what she has implied. She sounded like she's going to try and file for custody. (which she has been threatening to do for a while now, since he won't agree to hand over custody back to her) We know she'll be imputed minimum wage. She is EMT certified and has no kids living with her. He's hoping the impute EMT wages to her. Either way, she doesn't want to pay a penny for anything. THAT'S A DEADBEAT!!!

I agree. Anyone who will not help support their child is a deadbeat, whether that be financial or emotional support!!

My BF is dealing with a deadbeat mom. He tried to work with her but she felt that since he made more money, had a house, and a new girlfriend (??? she actually said this) she didn't need to support them. She couldn't comprehend the concept that she's responsible for the children as well. Just because she decided that needed to move hundreds of miles away to get herself together doesn't mean she no longer has children to take care of. He's taken her to court and her wages are about to be garnished. The ironic part is that the court is garnishing her wages for almost 3x the amount he would have taken from her when he was trying to work with her. I don't feel sorry for her, she brought this situation on herself. She's received a large sum of money since she left and she's gainfully employed, but has sent her kids less than $900 in almost a year and thinks that's perfectly fine.

My BF is dealing with a different kind of deadbeat mom. She has custody of their 2 children and hasn't worked full time for 8 years even though she is fully capable and has 2 post secondary degrees. she dabbles in going to school, spending all we send for the kids on her "school" to the point where we had to buy them winter jackets and boots last time they visited. My BF sends her 800 every month CS plus he pay 100% for orthodontic work and health and dental premiums. This comes to another 356/month. His ex decided to move accross the country even though he is a GREAT dad who loves his kids. She is hurting her kids soooo much, she chooses to be poor (well, actually after all the money we give her, plus the benefits she gets from the gov. her income goes from 10K/year to 28K/year). My BF income (after tax and child support and extra expenses) goes from 55K to 25K!!!!! It is a crime how the "system" encourages lazy good-for-nothing custodial mothers to keep being that way, and penalizes good decent men into paying so much for their kids (cause their lazy ex's don't want to share in this financial responsiblitiy) that they are often impoverished for life! this lazy good-for-nothing "mom" has already told us we'll be paying child support and university for the girls till they are 24! I say "we" because I have to contribute (as the girlfriend) to the support of HER kids! It is quite unbeleivable!!!! She has put us through the wringer and has had a legal aid (free) lawyer for 4.5 years, while my BF has had to pay for his. Why do I stay with him? Because he is an amazing person who is the best most loving dad I have ever seen and why should the ex have the power to take away his kids, 1/2 his income and take away the chance for him to have a happy loving life with a women who appreciates more in a man than just HOW MUCH MONEY SHE CAN GET OUTTA HIM!

I love it when the GF/BF complains about how much CS their SO has to pay. How in the world does your BF having to pay CS take away any chance for him to have a "happy loving life with a women?"

$1156 per month is not a lot for two kids. And if he makes 55k a year, well than that is not even close to half of his income. $1156 a month sounds about right for making 55k.

No matter if Mom works/not works/makes 100k a year/goes to school full-time....whatever the hell she does doesn't matter. Your BF will still have to pay child support. And guess what? It has nothing to do with how much money she can get out of him. He legally has to pay it. He fathered those children -- guess what? He has to take care of them.

Additionally, what did your BF do to stop her from moving across the country? He does have rights.

You do not have to contribute to the support of THEIR kids. Who told you that and why do you believe it? It is not just HERS. Your BF, whether you choose to admit it or not, FATHERED those two children. The sooner you can come to terms with that the better off you will be.

And no. It is very believable. You have kids, you have to support them.

And yes, I do take offense to the GF/BF bashing the parent who takes full-time care of the kids. I'm probably pointing out the obvious here.

It always amazes me how people say the fathr has to pay up, but make no mention of how the mother should pay up too. And how they can't do math. The CS is paid on after tax dollars, so it treated AS IF it is part of our household income. So 55,000 - tax (14,000) = 41,000 - 9600 (child support)= 31400 - 2000 (orthodontic) = 29,400 - 1920 (health and dental premiums he is required to pay = 27480 - 3600 (flights to see his girls) = 23,880. Do you think he had the money to fight in court to KEEP his kids here?! She had a FREE lawyer, who went for the gusto. She said she would make his life a living hell if he tried to stop her. Why is is so hard for some people to believe the system is UNFAIR to non-custodial parents (usually men). Women just do not want to face this fact, they are scared the system will change if people find out cause they've got it so good and they know it. Yes, I HAVE to HELP my BF pay all these expenses, unless he wants to be homeless. And i agree completely that he has to support his children, BUT SO SHOULD SHE, and by making us pay 100% of all the extras, she is NOT DOING HER PART! and all this BS custodial mothers spew out about having to pay mortgage and ulities and food etc. etc. - the father has the same expenses, their are TWO housholds and it is supposed to be CHILD SUpport, not spousal support, sorry honey but if you didn't have the kids you'd still have mortgage food and utility bills. And HE also has to maintain a home for when the children visit! I am sick of being politically correct - THIS WOMEN IS A GOOD-FOR-NOTHING LOSER THAT IS NOT TAKING CARE OF HER KIDS FINANCIALLY. The FIRST line in the divorce guidelines are "the children will continue to benefit from the financail means of BOTH parents" I wish more custodial mothers would be forced to comply with that.

giggle, I agree with most of what you say. I do however disagree that if the custodial parent doesn't work, they are not contributing to the support of their children. I'm not talking about when children are young and daycare would cost more than what she could earn, but when the kids are school aged, there's no reason to not work. Any parent can get a part time job while the kiddies are in school, at least they would be contributing SOMETHING financially. It should not rest 100% on the NCP to support the CP. Children have the right to be supported by BOTH parents. If one chooses not to work but to live off the support the NCP pays, then the child is suffering with a lower standard of living since the support is supposed to be based on both parents contributing. (Or at least it should be) Both parents have the kids, both parents should be supporting them. (again, when childcare would cost more than it's worth, that may be a good reason to stay home with them)

Oh yeah, and if they have some sort of agreement where both parents agree one will stay home and one will support 100%, that's up to them to agree to that. But it should not be a one sided decision. IMO.

Getlosttex,

If the mom has 2 children living with her, she logically would have more living expenses than her X. She likely needs at least a 2 bedroom apartment, maybe 3. Her X can get by on a small 1 bedroom, or could hava roommate. I live in a HCOLA so I wouldnt even say what the difference is.

Ima, fortunately there are laws and courts that help make decisions for the divorced. Otherwise, with all due respect, it would put many women at the mercy of men.

Gelostex -- I am a little surprised to hear about a legal aid attorney agressively pursueing X. Perhaps you dont have entire story.

"$1156 per month is not a lot for two kids"

My husband is ordered to receive less than 100 a month for two kids...so yeah that seems like alot to me.

I agree that BOTH parents custodial and non-custodial should work to support their children, I find it sick that a CP would just 'live' off of child support, its for the children not the xspouse who is a adult perfectly capable of obtaining a job.

"It always amazes me how people say the fathr has to pay up, but make no mention of how the mother should pay up too. And how they can't do math. The CS is paid on after tax dollars, so it treated AS IF it is part of our household income. So 55,000 - tax (14,000) = 41,000 - 9600 (child support)= 31400 - 2000 (orthodontic) = 29,400 - 1920 (health and dental premiums he is required to pay = 27480 - 3600 (flights to see his girls) = 23,880"

This should be fun. It always amazes me that the GF/BF have no real understanding of child support and how it works and then want to comment on it. BTW, there is no "ours" in this situation unless your income is imputed as well to come up with the amount of CS BF has to pay. Try again and this time research how CS works and then complain about just how much BF is paying once you understand. CS does not include airfare and yes, the percantage is based on income before taxes of both parties. This is not new and a special case does not need to be made for your BF.

"Do you think he had the money to fight in court to KEEP his kids here?! She had a FREE lawyer, who went for the gusto. She said she would make his life a living hell if he tried to stop her."

So, then since Mom has kids full time then it should've been very easy for BF to get a second job instead of playing house with the new bedwarmer. So what she had a free lawyer. If it is that important to BF, then he will do what he has to do instead of claiming poverty and being scared of Mom.

"Why is is so hard for some people to believe the system is UNFAIR to non-custodial parents (usually men). Women just do not want to face this fact, they are scared the system will change if people find out cause they've got it so good and they know it."

It isn't hard to believe. I don't believe that this is BF's case at all. $1156 is a normal amount. Get it yet?

"Yes, I HAVE to HELP my BF pay all these expenses, unless he wants to be homeless. And i agree completely that he has to support his children, BUT SO SHOULD SHE, and by making us pay 100% of all the extras, she is NOT DOING HER PART! and all this BS custodial mothers spew out about having to pay mortgage and ulities and food etc. etc. - the father has the same expenses, their are TWO housholds and it is supposed to be CHILD SUpport, not spousal support, sorry honey but if you didn't have the kids you'd still have mortgage food and utility bills. And HE also has to maintain a home for when the children visit!"

Let's hit you with your own logic now. You stated before that Mom has $28k to support the two kids and live off of after financial aid and CS. BF has 25k after paying CS. So, Mom has an extra 3k to raise the two kids with. But BF would be homeless without your help? Do you see anything wrong with this yet? $1156 isn't supporting a household of 3.

you are a brick wall. The father makes 55K/year. he works full time and very hard and is middle income. He has no post-secondary degrees. She works very little, makes 10K year and is subsidized by CS payments that she doesn't have to pay tax on, Child tax benefits that she doesn't pay tax on and tax credits. She spends everything on herself, going to school, with 2 post-sec. diplomas in her pocker. I think 800/month (that's like 1100/month for people who have to make this money and pay tax on it) should be enough to buy her kids some winter clothes. And thats just what she gets from dad, SHE is supposed to contribute to them financially as well.

You obviously can't do math because it is right there in front of your eyes. 55K minus taxes, CS, "extra-ordinary expenses" and flights to see the kids = 24,000 left for him.

But you see, she CHOOSES to be poor, to live in subsidized housing and take from the gov't. She QUIT a perfectly good job!!!!

for her 10K + 9600K + 7260(child tax benefit)+2200 (tax credit) = 28K!!!! It is not a LIE, it is the TRUTH, and she gets subsidized housing and student loans to help her out. It is her choice to be poor and she is bringing down her children and her ex (who pays for everything) with her.

The saddest part of all is the only expense that is not "court ordered" are the flights (3600/year or 300/month for the mathematically challenged) so when he gets too into debt that is the only thing he can "choose" not to do/pay for. But then he doesn't get to see his kids. Try telling a man that loves his kids as much as theri mother does, that he cannot afford to see them for a while untill we pay off the 8,000 worth of flights that are sitting on both our credit cards right now.

I don't know why you are so defensive about this, unless you are a women who is also finacnially neglecting her children?

getlostex, what I don't understand is your extreme financial involvement, to the point of rage, with something that belongs squarely to this man, not to you.

You aren't subsidizing his ex-wife or his children;
you are subsidizing him.

If he wants to fly to see the children, or fly the children to see him, & he can't afford it, *then he just can't afford it*.

& I'm skeptical of the court-appointed attorney being aggressive, too;
I'd wonder what attorney this man had, if he even had one, if he even objected to anything, if he even went to court.

You've heard your boyfriend's side of the story, & it's entirely black & white:
she bad, he good.

Life generally isn't that clear-cut.

getlostex,

I'm not defensive, I'm telling you the truth. I work with these cases every.damn.day. You obviously have no knowledge of how child support works, appropriate amounts or even real life expenses for anyone in this country!

Again, *everyone* including BM in this situation is imputed income before taxes. Do you get it yet? BF is not a special case and will not ever get special privileges so that his cs will be calculated after his taxes are taken out. What part is this so hard to understand?

If you think anyone lives off of $1156 a month with two kids, then I beg to know your secret.

Additionally, if BF has the money for the flights....then why in the world couldn't he get a lawyer to fight Mom in court to stay in the area? This "story" makes zero sense and is a## backwards. I'm guessing those credit cards rest solely in your name and your rage about this has to do with BF taking you for a ride and your are projecting your anger on BM about the money.

In any case, a deadbeat is someone who pays nothing and does not raise the child. You are off the mark here.

Oh and just to give you an idea, if SO and I were to break up and I had sole custody of DD -- SO would owe between 575 - 786 a month making 52k for ONE child. This is not including health insurance or daycare expenses.

Gee lets all raise our hands here. From a strictly financial standpoint (forget about love etc) your choice is 24K per year for yourself or 28K with two kids? Who takes the 28K with two kids? Gee I dont see a lot of hands. Maybe mom has taken subsidized housing etc., as she doesnt have a lot of choices with two kids. Where I live it would be tough. If you had them EOW, you'ld probably be complaining more.

Here In Canada the BM is not imputed an income unless she is taken to court. That the father chose to visit with HIS CHILDren rather than haggle in court (which he was advised he'd probably lose anyway) is completely understandable.

What is it with this board? I am simply reporting a case of a deadbeat mom. I am sure if any of you READ my posts and THOUGHT about it you would agree.

We all know there are deadbeat dads out there, why is it so hard to acknowledge a story about a deadbeat mom? Why are men so demonized in our society amd women are always looked at at victims that have excuses for everything.

She can work, she QUIT a job, her children are teens, she doesn't work beacuse she doesn't WANT to.

period the end. deadbeat mother.

Whooo-weeeee.

It does not matter if she does not work. Or what she does at all.

Your BF is still going to have to pay CS. End of story. The amount he is paying is not high for 55k with 2 kids.

You can either choose to believe this or continue buying into BF's "story" and keep racking up charges on your credit card.

There are plenty of deadbeat moms. My SD's Mom is one of them. SO has had custody of SD since she was 1. BM has not paid one red cent in CS. She is still "finding herself" after 6 years.

But you know what? We have the kid. The best part and we'd never change that.

We just got the response to my husbands motion to modify child support. The only issue is child support, not custody or visitation. Their hearing is on Thursday and he just got it today.....

BM writes: "Defendant will forego child support if Plaintiff agrees to the parenting plan Defendant has stipulated above" (where she says the child should reside with her and DH should have visitation the first three weekends a month. She also wants me to complete a step-parenting class. DH and I both took a step parenting class as well as a cooperative parenting class, which I'm trying to get DH to take again)

She says the reason custody should be changed is my kids threaten her daughter with a knife (that was brought up in the last trial and before she gave DH custody. Now it seems to be a concern again?) She also brings up me feeding SD oatmeal.

Then she says that DH knew she got laid off and therefore he shouldn't have filed this action. Then puts it all on me:

She writes:

"Plaintiff was aware of Defendants layoff from UPS prior to filing this motion. Plaintiff's wife (that's me) is the driving force behind this motion for the sole purpose of being malicious and harassing defendant."

IS SHE SERIOUS??? My husband NEEDS to get the order for him to pay her to be stopped. Otherwise, she very well could come back years from now and demand back support and get it. All he did was ask for a modification and due to him having SD most of the time, she will likely have to pay something. Oh yeah, and she listed that both of her daughters live with her. HMMMMM Thursday will be interesting.

Canadian child support is kind of weird though... We do have some wonky tax and income laws to do with it. For instance:
My friend, who is NCP, is legally required to take the highest paying job he is qualified for. If his son's mom finds out that he was offered a promotion that he turned down because he didn't like the job it would be for, she can sue him for the child support of the higher income. If he got in a scrap with his boss and quit to take a lower paying job where he would be happier and have more time for his son, she can still make him pay the old amount calculated from his old income.
HOWEVER, she, as CP, is not required to take the highest paying job she is qualified for. I guarantee you she is qualified to sell donuts and Tim Horton's is paying over $13 an hour, but she is taking a job as a childcare worker at $9.25 because "I like to work with kids".
So, this makes his income over three times hers, so he now has to pay 3/4 of their little guy's day care once her mat leave is over. As well as monster child support.
That's total bullsh!t in my opinion. I think what's good for the gander should be good for the goose and the same laws should apply to both parents.

Also, she qualifies as a low-income parent, so she gets a free lawyer and appears to be purposefully dragging things out. My friend doesn't qualify for a free lawyer and this is costing him an arm and a leg. If he could prove she was purposefully dragging things out to cost him money, then he could sue her for legal costs... But he has no way to prove it.

Anyhow, she's a pretty good mom (certainly not a deadbeat by any means) but she certainly is a b!tch.... And we have some weird CS laws.

Ceph, I agree about the Canadian cs system. But the states is just as wonky as well. There are some states that do the exact same thing as far as taking lower paying jobs, they will still calculate cs on the amount the are capable of earning.

Getlostex said "What is it with this board?"

I think a lot of people come here looking for a place to bash their SO's ex and complain about their stepkids and are sorely disappointed that we don't typically do that here. I think that might be what you're looking for (but I could be wrong because I'm basing that opinion off your screenname and your very few rather negative posts).
But that's not really what this board is. We are primarily SMs, FSMs or Dad's GFs who love our stepkids and need some support dealing with the added troubles of blended families. Many of us are also BMs who receive CS from an ex and may have to deal with their ex's new wife or GF. A few of us are even BMs without stepkids.
People who hate their SKs or their SO's ex aren't generally well-supported here, but there are plenty of other forums that are all about that.
Typically we try to help each other with problems stemming from stepfamily issues, rather than bash the SK's or the ex. That's what's with this board. So if you want to be constructive, I'm sure we'd all love to have you. But if you just want to complain about how your BF is getting the short end of the stick, you won't get much love here and maybe you should look for a board with a flame room.

LOl - oh yeah, CS laws are goofy all over the continent. Canadians certainly don't have the market cornered on odd CS laws, but we certainly have some wacky ones.

Imamommy, I just saw your post. I agree with you. But legally speaking in "getlostex" case, if Mom is receiving financial aid than she is contributing to the household. We obviously don't know the reason why she is receiving finacial aid, other than "getlostex" story. And granted, it could be for stupid reasons and she is using the system but at the same it might not be. But in any case, $1156 is not a far out amount for cs on 55k.

I think you'll do fine on Thursday. BM filed after DH and you've had SD for quite awhile. She's reaching. I'm probably telling you something you already know, but I wouldn't be worried if I was you.

Sieryn, I don't know details of your case (and it sounds unfortunate, every parent should contribute) but $1156 for two kids on an imcome of 55k is not crazy or abnormal.

The cases that drive me batty are the ones where so many kids are involved and the parent's get "discounts." Get another job, dammit!

What annoys me, for obvious reasons, are the states like mine where the NCP only has to pay child support for the first three children, even if you have a dozen of them. Apparently the other 9 children don't have to eat.

LOL, We aren't worried about custody/visitation changing. We only filed on the issue of child support. She is trying to bring up a custody/visitation change as part of her response to the child support issue. Nobody has filed a motion for a change of custody/visitation so the court is likely to disregard that. I just found it amusing that she is actually going to put in court papers that feeding a child oatmeal is 'abusive' and literally blame me for the whole thing. It would be understandable if she thought the only reason he was asking her to support her child is because I am pushing him (which I am not, although I do support the idea), but for her to actually put it in writing to the court. and saying that she got laid off so he shouldn't have filed it to begin with.

$1156 ... we would be living high on the hog!!! Oh wait thats what we got when mom was making 55K a year.

Hubby gets $120.00 a week now and hasn't recd a payment in 6 weeks.... :) She didn't pay for 18 months paid for 18 months not back to not paying.... she took lower paying jobs to lower support. Now laid off with no income unemployment ran out.

I wouldn't worry IMA just bring a letter on school letterhead with attendance record end of mom's story.

Not many families today have more than 3 children can't afford them.

Just because not many families have more than three children (actually, I know quite a few with 4), doesn't mean that the children who are in larger families don't deserve to be supported by their NCP.

what i love are the people who say $1156 is not too much for a 55K income. Income tax is paid by the NCP BEFORE she get her CS, so lets be fair and say its 1156/month on an income of 41,000. The CP's don't pay tax on this money, so it's only fair to compare apples to apples.

And lets not forget the most IMPORTANT expense of all (which nobody mentioned) 300/month to SEE HIS CHILDREN!!! This is a REAL expense, NOT shared by the CP, who moved her children away from an awsome loving father, the most selfish act in this world. (no she did not have a good reason. Both her children were born here but SHE wanted to move "home", then she moved to another province anyway, away from her "home", after 3/4 of a year). Her kids run off the plane and hug their dad. They tell us when they see their mom, (after 6 or 7 weeks with us in the summer) they just say "hi". very sad.

So his expenses really are 1456/month and this is on an after tax income of 41,000K. I just wish people would look at how it REALLY is for some NCP's.

If we are going to go around saying he pays 1156 on 55K, we might as well say she get 1100/month CS instead of 800/month because SOMEBODY has to pay tax on this money, and we know sure as anything that if she had to pay tax on it we'd he'd be hearing about it. (oh yeah, women used to pay tax on their CS but then made such a huge fuss about it that they changed the laws and made the men pay).

anyway, it is crazy to think that a family, assuming an intact family where BOTH parents make 55K (so a houshold income of 82K) would spend 1600/month for their 2 children each and every month! (remember BOTH parents are supposed to financailly support their children to the same degree). And then pay another 356/month on top of that for teeth etc. Oh yeah, and give them trips worth 3600/year! It is ludicrous.

And people don't think it's a rotton system when a man works hard, pays ALL that he can, is reduced to live in poverty (from a middle income) and the money goes to support a women who doesn't care to even try to support her children in a reasonable manner that she is capable of.

I have to say I agree with TOS on this one - if Dad was part of creating ALL of them he should be part of supporting ALL of them. You can't go to the store and buy a sandwich for 3 of them and get the rest for free. Yes, child support for more than 3 kids will be painfully expensive, but perhaps that should have been considered before leaving, or even before having them. Seems like a very flawed system to me.

Ima - laugh it off. She's obviously desperate and grasping at anything she can. To put that foolishness in writing will do nothing but give the judge a good chuckle. Have a big bowl of oatmeal that morning and hold your head high. Let us know how it goes.

I've been laughing all day since we got it. Our attorney says that she got a call yesterday from a woman claiming to 'represent' BM. When she talked to her, the woman then said she was not an attorney, but a paralegal. She only gave her name and the phone number where she can be reached to 'negotiate' a continuance before Thursday. The phone number traces back to a thrift store in the town where BM lives. The name of the woman is not registered as a paralegal in this state so I doubt she's legit. (Hmm, I wonder if it's a crime to pretend to be an attorney. I know it is to unlawfully practice law) I'm only assuming, but it is probably a friend of BM's that works in the thrift store, otherwise she wouldn't be there to accept a fax or phone call from our attorney. Once again, my jaw is on the floor at the things she will do. She really thinks DH is going to be shaking in his shoes? Not hardly.

i like when people say they are laid off when they actually never work!!!! what an excuse. maybe she was laid off once, but so what?? go look for a job! huh? paralegal from thrift store. hahaha too funny. and both DDs live with her when really none of them does? iammommy, yours SD's BM is definitelly a cookoo lady.

it reminds me of SO's X who demanded alimony because she worked part time instead of full time (her own decision) more than 20 years ago for 2 years. lol She said she sacrificed her career to take care of a family for 2 years. She actually wrote that and presented to lawyers. Lawyers both laughed very hard. of course she got no alimonies.

And two years after divorce SO still gets papers form her lawyer because she keeps filling something about him having hidden retirement accounts (nope, there are none), him giving her wrong price on the house (nope, he did not) etc. She never wins any of that, but how much aggravation. He cannot properly move on, there is no custody issue no CS, kids are grown and yet he has to deal with lawyers and pay them to investigate her claims. Not only it is rather expensive but it is emotionally draining. The most awful thing is that she informs her DDS: I just filled another claim that your dad is hiding retirement accounts from me or bank accounts or whatever accounts. Divorce was final long time ago, she got all the money she could. I do not know what satisfication it gives her to bring claims up again since she never wins any of them! so what is the point?

This doesn't add up to me... GetLost's BF's ex moved the kids away from him, but he has to pay for them to travel?
I'm also Canadian and have many friends and family members who have custody agreements. AFAIK, our laws are such that if one parent chooses to move, they are then responsible for the costs associated with transporting the children to and from the other parent. So, legally, I think that their mom should be paying their travel costs if she was the one who chose to move.
If that isn't actually the law, then it must be that everyone I know with a custody agreement had the good sense to put that clause in there and GetLost's BF didn't. Which really, makes it his own problem.

There are at least two sides to every story. One of my friend's X didnt object to her moving because she was able to find inexpensive safe housing where she moved to. AS much as Getlost seems to think that 28K a year is a lot for a family of 3, Getlosts DH may have realized this was the best alternative available. Unfortunately when middle class (or actually anyone other than Paul Mccarthy) gets divorced, there are likely to be money issues.

I moved DD away from X which he agreed to. But he was always the one to pay for her transportation to him and from him. I don't understand why would i have to pay for DD to see her father? This makes no sense. he is her father and if he wanted to continue being her father then obviously he bought her tickets to see him. The other parent can object to a child moving, if they do not object, then why would they demand someone else to pay for transportation?

That isnt the law in Canada. The NCP must pay the transportation costs; however, if the NCP has a lower standard of living than the CP ( factoring in everyone in the homes income) , then he or she can get an offset to cover transportation

My SD's BM gets 1200 a month for one kid that doesn't even live with her. I have to say though, that I think that is a bit excessive for one kid. But, the courts came up with it so who am I to argue?

My DH makes about 60k and if he had to pay 1156 a month for his daughter, it would be really tough. The courts don't take into account other debts and for someone that makes that much and has no bills, it would be fine. My DH is still paying off credit card debt from when he was with BM. Since they were never married, they had no division of debts and he got stuck with all of it since he is the one that had good credit and she had bad credit. All of it was in his name. It was a good lesson to not have joint credit cards or put someone on as authorized user. He and I have one joint card we just paid off and we each have our own separate accounts. But, I can see where it would be tough to pay out 1156 on that income. I also agree the child needs to be supported so if that's the amount the court ordered, then they did so probably using the guideline. If my DH was ordered to pay some amount like that, I'd be the one paying it, either by sending it directly or if he paid it, I would have to make it up on the bills. Right now, all his income is going to his debt. and when they ran a guideline amount, in case BM had gotten custody, it was only going to be around 700 a month. If she had 100% time, it would have been around 900 a month. (That's why she wanted my income used too, so it could be even more)

If he thinks he's paying to much, he can always ask to have it recalculated. Make sure the time split is accurate and both incomes are accurate as well as seeing if he can get any credit for travel expenses, but asking for a change can always result in an increase too. I do agree that if she is able to work, she should be imputed income based on her ability. I don't think anyone has a choice to stay home and not work if they have children. Unless one parent agrees to be the sole support, it's the obligation of both parents to support a child. It doesn't matter if it's the CP, NCP, mother or father that doesn't want to work. If you have children, it's your responsibility. (unless, like I said, if one person agrees to be the sole support)

"Unfortunately when middle class (or actually anyone other than Paul Mccarthy) gets divorced, there are likely to be money issues."

I agree. It will never be seen as fair to anyone. Kids are expensive.

Imamommy, I don't think $1156 for two children is high. I understand that courts don't take other bills into consideration, but they really shouldn't have to imo. It is up to the individual to make sound financial choices and live with them. It would be chaos if everyone got to get a discount for having other bills to pay. If they are extraordinary medical, which I believe most states already make an exemption for, that's one thing. But credit card debt is something the parent chooses -- the other parent should not have to take a lower amount because of this.

In your DH cases it is unfortunate and I would hate to be involved in the situation, but luckily he does not have to pay that amount.

I agree, for two kids, it's not a lot. He only has one so I was basing it on one kid. I don't agree with giving exemptions for other kids. Of course, I have three kids Even though they rarely paid, my oldest son's father was ordered to pay me $196 a month. My middle son's father is ordered to pay me $310 a month (which was the most recent order) and my daughter's father was ordered to pay me $72 a month. None of those is unreasonable or high yet never got paid. (well, with my middle son, that was just ordered and he has paid on time the last three months, which is when it started) I asked him for $200 a month in 1992 but it never got ordered and he never paid anything due to other legal issues that we recently resolved. Now, 18 years later, i am owed well over $100k. The interest that accumulates every month is several times the original amount ordered. DEADBEATS.

and yes KKNY, I would rather have my kids any old day!!!

I would rather have my child also, but I specifically said, from a STRICLTY FINANCIAL STANDPOINT, would you rather have 28K with 2 kids, or 24K and be on your own.

Maybe it's just that most everyone I know put a clause into their agreements that whoever moves away is responsible for travel costs. Since I know at least four people who have that setup after the CP has moved, I assumed it was the law here... but regardless, people should cover their financial butts about the possibility that their ex could move away with the kids.

I'd still take 28K and two kids... Hell, I'd take 10K and my kids. Money can't buy love and family is much more important than money.

Maybe I missed your point???

I said from a strictly finanical standpoint. As in, solely considering money, what would be the better alternative. Does anyone not understand?

The point I was trying to make to Getlosttex was that families are more expensive to maintain.

kkny, I got what you were trying to do. I tried to prove that point to getlost as well, but she apparently thought that I was saying that she was lying about how much disposable income BF has after bills. It didn't go over very well, needless to say.

KK - I got what you were saying too.
And yes, from a strictly financial standpoint, 24 w/o kids is much better than 28 with 2 kids.
Maybe not from a love and fulfillment standpoint, but I saw what you meant.

I love my DD, and have her 24/7, but yes kids are expensive. You think once the diapers are over, it will get better. Then you think when they start school, and you will need less child care. Then you think when you wont need after school child care. Then you have the sports and activities. And I have a normal child and great health care.

kkny,

I got what you were saying, too. Strictly financial means strictly financial - that's pretty clear.

My ex pays for flights because he would never SEE his children if he had to pay. She chose to quit a job and go to school part-time and work very little. I understand that it is HARD for a family of 3 on 28K, but my point was that is was her choice to be poor. That is why I labelled her a "deadbeat". My BF's lawyer put in the agreement that the EX would pay for flights PROPORTIONAL to their incomes once she obtains a FULL-TIME job (and beleive me I think they haggled for a year to even get that included in the divorce). Unfortunately that was many years ago and she still hasn't gotten one.

As for the amount paid - all I can say is that if the 2 children were living with him, and not only did he not have to PAY out 800/month, but RECEIVED 800/month (a spread of 1600 which is another thing most people don't think about) and she paid 1/2 the extra 356 in expenses and paid for 1/2 their flights, I am sure it would feel like he won the lottery (both emotionally and finacially).

If she made even 40,000/year (which is less than she made in the job she quit), she would have at least 52,000 after tax dollars.

The point I was trying to make was by choosing to make herself and her children poor, she is also contributing to making my BF poor. If she worked harder and shared in expenses or paid for flights, that would make a big difference in all 4 of their lives.

"The point I was trying to make was by choosing to make herself and her children poor, she is also contributing to making my BF poor."

I understand this scenario is a diffrent context - My DH's xwife is a CPA - yet she works part time at a shoe store and does not pay her child support. If she chose to apply herself not only would her standard of living increase but she could contribute twards her children and increase their (and ours as the expenses would then be somewhat shared) standard of living.