 |
Canada laws please... Ihave custody of my daughter and she has chosen to go live with her father.. she is 13... I have remarried 7 years ago.. I don't work and have two more children to my husband. My ex wants to go to court and get support payments from my husband.. can he do this? :mad: So I guess my question is... Does a step father have to pay support for a child that is not his... thanks
No. However, its possible the court may consider family income in determining the amount of support.
Im a little confused and what Im about to say is going to sound really harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by althearumney
This post seems the perfect example of the double standard that exists in the child support areana. Wouldn't you be screaming dead beat had he been the one that remarried and wasn't working ? But because of your gender its OK that you don't want to contribute to your child's welfare. He can and will have to be required to pay YOUR child support because when he brought you into a relationship he took on your responsibilities too. And if that doesn't sound fair then remember you choose not to work. Like it or not it's the same complaint I see on this board day in and day out - dead beat is what the posts say. Plese reconsider and try to be reasonable and pay as needed for your child without complaining.
First, let me say I agree with califdad that you should be required to pay support. There may be a statutory minimum that is required. Or, as I suggested, household income may be used to calculate support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Maybe she is a stay-at-home mom. She does state she has two other kids! We don't know the whole situation i.e. how old they are.
althearumney... you need to consider going back to work to support your older child. Wish nothing but the best :)
And it's not like she wasn't supporting this child up until now. Her daughter has just moved in with the father. This is something new to her and I think her question was a reasonable one. Again... you should get a job so your new husband can take care of his biological kids, and you can take care of yours. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by southerngalps
Thank you for you response.. it isn't a case of the money, I don't have to work.. what I don't think if far is that someone else should have to pay for someone else's kid.. and I do buy her whatever it is she requires.. I was wanting to know the law on this not opinions.. and I did say canadian law not american... thanks again for responding though.. have a great dayQuote:
Originally Posted by southerngalps
Thank you for your answer.. I got a lot of flack but I have big shoulders.. I was wanting to know the canadian law on this but it is okay I will talk to my lawyer tomorrow.. thanks againQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Yeah... sorry. Not sure about the law in this case. I was just responding to the prior answers. I thought the answer was jumping to conclusions. Well if you are not working, then I guess the money will have to come from your husband's income, because the court order for child support will go through no matter what. They are not going to drop it because you don't have a job. Have you tried contacting someone by phone. Here in the U.S. we have child support services. I would make a call to the service in your location. The phone number would be in the government section of your phone book (I would think). Tell them your situation and see if they would go to your husband for the money. The judge in the case might make you get a job. You will just have to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by althearumney
Here is a link to the law and how it may apply to you.
Child Support Laws
This is for canada. And yes by law you are required to pay.
That link calif posted is really good. There are a lot of Canadian laws very similar or even the same as U.S. law when it comes to family law. You are required to pay support to the cp since you are the ncp. If you don't want to work then the money will come from your husband. As pointed out earlier you are a liable for the child as her father is. There are many posts about the guys not wanting to pay when they don't have custody and they are told the same thing. The gender dosen't matter what matters is the cp vs. ncp. The ncp always has to pay support.
Thanks for your help
HORROR:
PAYING REQUIREMENTS
To the surprise of most people, stepparents may be required to pay child support for their stepchildren.
This can be true even if the child's biological father is already paying child support. In fact, it is not uncommon for the custodial payer to receive payments from more than one former spouse.
In stepparent cases, courts are given the discretion to decide how much child support should be paid. One commonly applied “rule of thumb” is to calculate how much the stepparent would be required to pay under the Child Support Guidelines, then deduct from that the amount of child support that the biological parent is paying.
If the biological parent is not paying anything (for instance, the biological parent is unemployed, ill or cannot be located), then the stepparent may be on the hook for the full table amount of child support.
A stepparent, then, may be required to pay any amount ranging from a token top-up amount to the full amount called for by the Child Support Guidelines.
Be a good samaritan or a nice person in Canada...
Humm. I can't say I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by GV70
In California anyway, we have an old line of cases from the 1950s in which stepparents (the stepfathers I'm sure) were found liable for child support but only after they were found to be de-facto parents, that they had assumed the parenting role for the child for a substantial period (we have a series of very well known treaties on California law by an attorney and lecturer named Witkin, and Witkin called these cases of stepparents paying support the cases of "the stepped-up step-parent" (I thought that was kind of cute)). So yes, this is true in California as well.
As far as simultaneously collecting support from a bio-parent and de-facto parent (to total the state guideline where needed), treating both as sort of jointly and severally liable for the support, I haven't seen it but it seems feasible and I doubt any judges I've ever been in front of would find it objectionable.
However, having said that I'm not sure the rule applies in this case. She said she has a new husband with whom the child apparently lived for the last seven years but did he ever become a de facto parent? Did the child lose all contact with the bio-dad during this time? Did the step-dad hold the child out as his own, did she look to him as dad? I don't get that impression from this OP so I would doubt current husband could ever be found liable for support.
Of course, we may be reading her question wrong. Is she perhaps asking that, since she doesn't work, can her husband's income be treated as hers for HER liability to pay child support? In other words, do we tack on new spouse's income in making a child support order? In California the answer is no (there is a weird sort of exception to that rule that is so rare and unusual that it's almost always safe ignorning it).
In my view stinawords is right.The OP is obligated to pay CS.If she does not work-her husband will be obligated.
Canadian law does not recognize defacto parents statute/if I am not mistaken/. The whole mess began after SC decision in Chartier vs Chartier.In this case the Court ruled that the stepfather was liable to CS payments because the child in question was born in his marriage to the mother and no other payer was unable.In the USA it is known as "Paternity by estoppel".After that all courts are obligated to impose child support payments to all step-parents.
It is not a correct statement of law that all courts are obligated to impose child support payments to all step-parents, at least not in California. Stepparents are not obligated to pay child support for children who are not theirs unless they are found to be de-facto parents (which requires specific findings of fact and an adjudication of parentage by estoppel) (Marriage of Pedregon (2003)107 Cal. App. 4th 1284.)Quote:
Originally Posted by GV70
The way we find a mother liable for CS who doesn't work but has a working husband/stepfather is simply to impute income and/or earning capacity to her rather than go after the stepfather on an estoppel theory (which, as stated is not always possible, I know and have had these kinds of cases in court before).
Quote:
Originally Posted by althearumney
Dear cadillac59,Quote:
Originally Posted by cadillac59
If you read correctly what I wrote you will understand that I mean Canadian family law. And it is about Canadian court practice.My answer is correct.There is a little difference between Canada and California.
Well that's interesting then. You have to wonder about the public policy and wisdom behind a simple rule of law like that- all stepparents owe support for their step-kids even if they have a legal father already. Sounds potentially anti-marriage. Who would ever want to marry someone with kids if by doing so you were signing onto a support obligation for those kids with whom you have no relationship? But who I am to question the wisdom of Canadian law?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by GV70
The more I think about it the more I recall hearing once that Washington State has the same rule about step-kids ( I vaguely remember hearing something about it at a seminar I attended a few years back). Maybe it's the colder wetter climate of these regions that makes lawmakers wish to impose these harsh rules on stepparents! I still think California has a far more equitable approach to this matter (the sunny warm weather helps us think more clearly :-) ).
A little from Canadian child support guidelines:
The Divorce Act defines a “child of the marriage” as a child of two spouses or former spouses, and includes “any child of whom one is the parent and for whom the other stands in the place of a parent.” According to the Federal Child Support Guidelines, when a spouse stands in place of a parent for a child, the amount of the child support order is such amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to the amounts prescribed in the tables and any other parent's legal duty to support the child.
Discussion began with the assumption that some clarification of section 5 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines is needed to clarify step-parent liability for child support obligations. It was suggested that a formula approach should be considered, and that the formula should be premised on some basic assumptions such as:
* The natural parent's obligation is fixed, but Chartier case /Chartier v. Chartier, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 242./establishes the liability of step-parents for support as well.
* Not all natural parents can afford the Guidelines amount and sometimes default on their payments.
* Sometimes the step-parent's income is higher than the natural parent's.
James C Morton
Lawyer, law professor and media commentator
"The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled Monday in H.(U.V.) v. H.(M.W.), 2008 BCCA 177 that the parent pays in full first and if there is a shortfall in the amounts necessary to provide the child with an appropriate level of support the step-parent must make up the difference. The decision is lengthy, detailed and nuanced.
At the other end of the spectrum, where the three (or more) parents' Guidelines contributions together are needed to provide the children with a reasonable standard of living, then both the stepparent and the non-custodial parent(s) may well be required to pay full Guidelines amounts. Or, where one of the natural or adoptive parents is not present or is unable to pay any support, the stepparent may well have to pay his or her full table amount. The Legislature has left it to the judgment of trial and chambers judges in the first instance to fashion orders that are appropriate under s. 5.
In this case, the income levels of the father and stepfather were not very different. When the stepfather was supporting the children, the father was sharing custody and was therefore not expected to contribute funds to the mother for the children's care. Now, the natural parents are able to provide a quite comfortable standard of support the father by paying his Guidelines amount and the mother by providing her presumed contribution as custodial parent. The chambers judge reasoned that the mother's expenses were slightly more than her Form 89 had indicated about $2,570 per month from May 1, 2006. In this, he has not been shown to be wrong. Where he erred was in approaching the natural father's obligation as a secondary one, losing sight of the non-discretionary obligation created by s. 3. If the chambers judge had factored in the Guidelines obligations of the natural parents, which come to a total of $2,210 per month, he would have been left with a shortfall of $360 per month. If the stepfather had been ordered to top up this amount, the children would have a more than a fair standard of support and the other requirements and objectives of the Guidelines would have been met."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 AM. |