[quote]ouroboro_s wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
What are the laws if the parents break up and the father wants to test if he’s the father. If it turns out he isn’t does that mean he does not have to pay child support? [/quote]
Up here paternaty is all but meaningless. Step fathers who are financially supportive during a remarriage have a legal obligation to support his wife’s child if the marriage ends. I.E. there can be multiple men paying support for a single child. One for being the father, and another just because he was kind enough to put a roof over his now ex-wife’s kid’s heads. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
“Support payments” are a scam no matter wether the kids are yours or not. If the kids aren’t yours, it’s juts that much worse, because while all men are crucified in the family court, it’s not your cross to bear. The heart of the matter remains however that the rights of “non-custodial parents” are disproportionatly low compared to their enormously increased responsabilities, while their children (biological or otherwise) will generally not live anywhere near the standard of living the “support payments” should provide.[/quote]
I hear more stories about men getting away with paying little or nothing for child support but whatever. I think everyone suffers financially when it ends because now you are trying to support 2 households with the same amount of money as when it was just one.
Also I think when relationships end, it sometimes brings out the worst behaviour in people so I think there is nasty things on both sides. I think you hear the man’s side and I hear the woman’s side. Maybe?
[/quote]
You’re misinformed. The basic amount to be payed is looked up in a spreadsheet based on your income (or imputed income if your income doesn’t match your apperent capabilies or historical income). Google “federal child support guide lines”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the words “guide lines” imply that varience is common place. Unless your kids spend more than 40% of their time with you, or you have a disabled parent in your care and can argue “undue hardship”, you WILL pay the table amount. Undue hardship is for the disabled reletive - NOT for you, and it is nearly impossible to prove since people living in that type of financial situation to start with can hardly afford a lawyer to argue such a thing. And the 40% thing is ludicrously black and white - you MIGHT get a break at 40% (if you can convince the judge that the children will not be worse off at the other parents home), but 39% is insufficient for any reduction whatsoever. I have watched women go to the moon and back for that 1%. It’s a matter of hours, but it’s worth hundreds of dollars to them. And the basic amounts do NOT cover the cost of clothing, child care, extracaricular activities, etc… Which the “custodial parent” is entitled to bill you for a “proportional share” of. Often these costs will be in excess of the table amount itself. There is no weaseling out of this shit, and paying “little or nothing”. It’s the law, and judges will enforce it every time. And there is no not paying what they order. They will garnish your pay and liquidate everything you ever aquire for the rest of your life if that’s how long it takes, but you WILL pay. Anywhere from 25% to 50% of your gross (before tax) income once the table amounts, and additional costs are tallied. Now I know everyone here on the internet is rich and famous and would have no trouble at all paying such an amount, but out there in the real world where the majority of men work in construction, agriculture, factories, etc… You’ve just been downgraded from working class to poverty. Good luck accumulating enough capital to start a business, or take advantage of any kind of financial opportuities.
And 2 households on the same income? Again, I know that here on the internet every man married a doctor, nurse, or lawyer, but back out in the real world their ex-wives pour coffee at Tim Hortons, and upon divorcing recieved substantial increases to their government program “baby bonus / child tax benefit / etc”, while the men lost dependents from their income tax, and move up a bracket. The financial incentives for a woman to be single with children in this country are rediculous.
Sometimes when a relationship ends there are hard feelings that bring out the worst in people. Other times, there are no hard feelings until well after the fact, when post-divorce power is used and abused. People are always so worried about physical abuse - don’t punch a woman ! Fuck. I’ll take a punch in the head over 2 decades of poverty, and alienation from my children any day. This is the kind of abuse that needs solving, but in our society it gets shrugged off like it’s nothing. Nobody should have to deal with that kind of shit, wether they trusted their sperm to the wrong bitch or took the word of a lieing cheating whore.[/quote]
Wall of anger.
[/quote]
Don’t mistake my poor punctuation for anger. Stories about men paying “little or nothing” (atleast in Canada) are fairy tales told by pop feminists, angry women, and the fools who follow them as part of their endless momaganda campaigns. They’d like you to believe that divorced fathers don’t want to see their children, and would rather spend their days drinking champagn, wearing a top hat, and a monacle in the back of a limo than support their children, but the truth is those dads are about as common as serial killers, and they get away with it with about the same frequency.