🚀 go-pugleaf

jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:

> In <18TwuB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> >The majority of the NCP's who are in default of their child support Orders a
> >quite able to pay.
> 
> I have a hard time believing this.  It is hard enough these days to support
> one household on a single income.  What typically happens after a divorce, 
> especially in the case where there are young children, is you have one
> person trying to support two households on one income.  

 Oh no, my friend, I think not! What IS typical, is that post-divorce
 CPs tend to end up trying to support their children and themselves on
 the CP's income alone, while the non-paying NCP enjoys a lifestyle that
 is, in effect, supported by the CP.

 For example, my ex has several windsurfers, ski equipment, etc., and buys
 seasons passes at the ski hills each year. The fact that he refuses to
 pay his share of the expenses necessarily incurred in the raising of OUR
 children, supports his own lifestyle. If my ex paid his support payments,
 he could still afford his social and recreational pleasures most of the
 time, although admittedly, he may have to pass up the odd new boom for his
 sailboard(s), once every while. But hey! Maybe then our kids could take the
 ballet and swimming lessons they ask for each year! What a concept.

 Also, Canadian laws concerning how support payments are determined and
 assigned by the courts, are based on the income and living expenses of
 BOTH parents. While it is true that the NCP is expected to pay a
 reasonable share of all expenses deemed necessary to provide adequately
 for the raising of the children --- and so they should be --- the
 NCP's personal income and necessary living expenses are given equal
 consideration. It is understood that they too need a decent place to live,
 food, utility funds, clothing and an entertainment allowance, etcetera.

 After examining the income and expense payments of both parents, the
 judge determines the reasonableness of the statements and orders Child
 Maintenance payments be made in corresponding proportions to those
 statements (providing they are within reasonable bounds to begin with).
 Usually, the orders are made based on the average income of each parent,
 so that if the CP makes $1500 a month and the NCP makes $3000 a month,
 the NCP will likely be expected to contribute twice what the CP does to
 raise the children, because the NCP is seen to be able to have twice the
 means to do so. The children's welfare continues to be the responsibility
 of both parents, naturally. It certainly is unlikely that an NCP will need
 as much money to support one person (themself), as the CP will need to
 support the CP AND the children.

 Anyway, it goes something like that. I do not have the laws governing such
 decisions in front of me (am waiting for them). I'm going on recall here
 but I believe you'll find I'm more or less on the right track.

 Also, either parent may apply to the Court Registrar for an "Application to
 Vary"  if their financial circumstances have changed and they want the
 original Order revised. Legal Aid will do this for the NCP, if they
 are eligible for Legal Aid (based on their income). In the best case
 scenario, both parents would simply make a verbal or written agreement
 between themselves to differentiate from the original Order. Unfortunately,
 most divorced parents are not prepared to do this, for whatever reasons.

 If you honestly believe our courts to be so grossly unjust, why don't you
 start campaigning for a more intelligent and just judicial system?

> John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
> Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
> "The average middle income family with two parents and children pays $2,945
> more in Federal taxes than they would have under the tax policies in place
> before the Tories first came to power in 1984."

  Maybe you missed my original point? Some of the tax dollars all of us pay
  go towards collecting from those NCPs who are delinquent in their
  obligations towards their own young'uns.

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