He earns much more than me, and is not a student as I am trying to get through University. I have been with the child since he was born and he has only been there for the past few months. Our daughter is 2 years old and neither of us have full custody, but right now I would assume full custody until we have a court appoint Joint Custody. I don't want his money, but I need it. I do not smoke, drink, and most of my spending goes towards our child.

And I'm a single mother, and he is living with someone who earns a decent income (better than my income, anyway, if not the same).

He says it's greedy for me to ask for child support from him when he has the child 50% of the time. But I need it, and the guidelines show he is obligated to pay base on his salaray VS mine. Is this really being greedy? Can he really take half of the CTC when I will not be able to support my child without his support AND the CTC? Is this justice? Has anyone has similar issues?

Based on the latest Supreme Court decision, one can't assume that the method of subtracting his table payments from your table payments is the best one. Other methods might be better for you. There is no fixed rule for the amount of child support payable in shared custody cases.

However, no doubt he should be paying you something. If he's letting you keep the whole child tax credit, that may or may not be enough. Besides, if he applies for half the child tax credit, what will he get? If his income is too high he gets nothing.

As for if they were to split the Child Tax Benefit, right now he earns more than me but enough that he is still eligible for it. However, he likely knows that after a year of living with his partner, the income on their tax form will definately be above 48K (or whatever the max is now for being eligible). I think this is why he is so against paying child support because he's afraid that by a year's time he'll have to pay more because his incoming will be combined with the person he lives with.

Personally, if roles were reversed and I made more and he was single and in a low-income state I wouldn't fight giving him money. However, as long as this doesn't hurt my soul, or our daughter's, I will be okay in the end with any outcome. Still, I can't imagine the justice would be dealt to the advantage of someone who already has all of the advantages. Like I heard in a movie, "what can one do against such evil".

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
Thank you, I will go to the Family Law Information centre. I currently hired a lawyer

. . . he's afraid that by a year's time he'll have to pay more because his incoming will be combined with the person he lives with.

---

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
He normally does have her on the weekend, but because it's a holiday isn't there anything to be said for that?

---

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

When I separated from my ex, we did shared custody, 50-50. The way we worked it was that I would have him for 4 days, and my ex would have him the next 4 days. It worked out pretty well (while we were doing it) because that way no one got all the weekends. But that can only work if both parents co-operate and think about the child instead of themselves (something that, unfortunately, didn't happen in my situation near the end of that arrangement, thus the change in arrangement).

It's not about what you need, it's about what your daughter needs. You can make an arrangement where you both see her 50% of the time and work around when you both have days off, if you want to make it work.

As to the legal stuff - I have no clue, and as Wilf has said a few times, you should probably talk to a lawyer about your unique situation.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
the daughter isn't with him half that time because he's working

---

2. What sort of relationship does your daughter have with her father? A good one? A bad one?

3. How old is this child? How disruptive to her life will any new arrangement be?

4. It is your "right" to say "no" and his "right" to take you to court. (You will probably find that the court will rule that he gets her every second weekend. You will probably also find that the court system will create an even more adversarial relationship than you two have now.)

5. Don't go to legal aid or anything if you can help it. The fuckers tried to make me pay them back for the privilege of being able to pay a crappy lawyer a crappy amount to get crappy representation. I (angrily) pointed out that at no time did they tell me I was applying for a loan and they backed off. They might have added this "pay back" info on applications now.

6. If your daughter and her father have a good relationship, I see nothing wrong with working out an arrangement where he gets more time with her, but one also including you getting to enjoy alternating weekends.

7. I hesitate to say "the best interests of the child" because in my experience that was an empty mantra chanted by morons to justify whatever it is they had decided to do in the first place, but it really should be about your daughter and not the competing egos and bruised psyches of her parents. Children obviously don't "need" both parents (or else the children of widows and widowers, and orphan children would supposedly be unable to function) but if a child has two parents, they will want to know both their parents. Unless a parent is a destructive influence (and not just in the mind of a pissed-off ex) the child should be allowed to have a relationship with that parent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

It's standard practice in our Family Court to maximize the child's access to both parents. The child should not be with a babysitter if the other parent is available. That doesn't mean the child should be denied access to his parents, but the parent-child bond comes first.

---

How about if it's a grandmother? My "babysitter" is the grandmother. Is that okay? When she's with me, she's either with me, or with her grandmother.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

As it stands now, you are holding all the cards legally. You are the primary caregiver. You could go for sole-custody and most-likely win (unless he was prepared to take a big chance, hire an expensive lawyer, and argue that he could be the better parent due to his higher income, his partner to help out, etc., ... what's more likely though is that it would blow up in his face and he'd find himself dinged for much bigger support payments).

I'd say, stand your ground, and say that you are prepared to concede increased access in return for alternating weekends with her.

Somebody else might be able to tell you if counselling is available for the two of you to help you to work out these arrangements in a less confrontational manner.

I'm worried about you saying that your daughter cries when you drop her off with him. Is this because things are cold and neglectful with him, or do you somehow communicate your anxiety about him to her, and upset her?

Your version of things sounds convincing, but ask yourself honestly if you're doing all you can to make your daughter's relationship with her father non-problematic.

quote:

---

It's just that half of the week just doesn't seem right for a 2 year old to be away from their mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
There is no issue of abuse with my daughter. It's just that half of the week just doesn't seem right for a 2 year old to be away from their mother.

---

Why not? Why would it be any worse for a 2 year-old to be away from their mother for half a week than it would be their father?

I see what you mean about a sudden change - I'm no psychologist or psychiatrist and I'm not a child expert, but from my own experience, children (especially young ones) are amazingly resilient and get used to new situations quickly, especially when their parents do their very best to ease transitions.

What my ex and I did was, when we first separated, we did one day, one day. (We lived in the same apartment complex, different apartments.) Then we moved to two days alternating. Then three days. Then four days. He got used to it gradually and it worked pretty well.

You might find that if you try to find a solution that splits the time equally (even if it involves more frequent switching at first), then he might be willing to work with you on it, and then you can both have weekends.

You keep talking about how you have no rights. It's not about your rights. It's about your daughter's rights.

If you find that he won't reason with you in a way that would make it possible for both of you to see her regularly, and for both of you to have her on your days off from work, then perhaps court is the answer. But from the little I've read so far, it sounds to me like you're thinking a lot more about how it will affect you than how it will affet your daughter. I know how you feel, because I've been there, and it's really hellish. But if you get yourself into the mindset that you want to make these arrangements work for your daughter's sake (without letting yourself get railroaded into making all the concessions and accommodations, of course, if he's making unreasonable demands), then it might be easier for you to handle the separation from your daughter.

Fact is, you had a child with this guy, and he's her father. And it sounds like he wants to be her father in more than name only, and have an equal share in parenting. You shouldn't let him make all the rules and dictate all the terms, of course. You don't need to be a doormat.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
When she's with me, she's either with me, or with her grandmother. When she is with her father, when he goes to work, my daughter is with the girlfriend.

---

As to the child going back and forth between parents a lot, again it depends on all the circumstances. If you live nearby, in the same school area, and the child is comfortable going back and forth, and you are on day shift, and he is on afternoon shift, the child could go to his home for lunch every day and to your home for dinner every day. That's the one extreme. On the other hand, if you have a pattern of alternate weeks, and it would be too disruptive to the child for the child to go back and forth all the time, it may be best for the child to be with your mother or his girlfriend during your respective weeks when the parent is at work.

Some orders or agreements say that the other parent has first option on all child care when the parent looking after the child is going to be away for more than __ hours, such as 3 hours. Again this depends on how far apart they live, and all the other circumstances.

So the principle has to be applied in the light of what's best for the child, but the principlle still is, unless the child's best interests require otherwise, if both parents are good parents, the schedule should maximize the child's time with both parents.

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
Since I work during Mon-Fri it's difficult for me to get to the FLIC and other legal places so I am hoping to gather what info I can online.

---

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
If one parent or the other goes to court to sue for custody, the judge will award it to one parent or the other, the reasoning being that if the parents are fighting it out in court, then obviously they will not be able to make a joint custody or shared parenting arrangement work because they are not willing to do so.

---

I'm lucky to come from a home where both of my parents live together and I did have "maximum contact" with both of them. I feel for these kids who are used as pawns in an adult pissing match. The fact of the matter is that if both parents truly love the child, then they should be less concerned with "what about me?" lines of thinking and focus more on "what about my child?".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Why not? Why would it be any worse for a 2 year-old to be away from their mother for half a week than it would be their father?.

---

Only because her father wasn't there for the first year. So she isn't used to him enough in my opinion so suddenly be with him half of the time. I like the idea of doing it gradually for her own sake, but her father would not have it and he told me it was illegal for me to deny his access. At the same time, I wanted him to be a part of her life, and so the fact that he chose to take her more often was a bit of hope.

quote:

---

And it sounds like he wants to be her father in more than name only, and have an equal share in parenting. You shouldn't let him make all the rules and dictate all the terms, of course. You don't need to be a doormat.

---

quote:

---

has a commonlaw spouse with an income.

---

As noted before, this does not matter in the case of custody, child support etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
So she isn't used to him enough in my opinion so suddenly be with him half of the time. I like the idea of doing it gradually for her own sake, but her father would not have it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sisyphus2:

No disrespect, but when I hear adults start complaining about "their" rights and the injustices "they" suffer from, my blood boils.

---

As far as Tax stuff goes, unless there's some specific custody arrangement worked out in the courts (then im not sure) but otherwise it's the first person to claim it since only one parent can. I only know that's for sure the case without a court ordered custody arrangement.

On a side note; I don't think anyone here knows enough about the case to pass judgement or make blanket statements about access.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Brown:
As far as Tax stuff goes, unless there's some specific custody arrangement worked out in the courts (then im not sure) but otherwise it's the first person to claim it since only one parent can. I only know that's for sure the case without a court ordered custody arrangement.

---

Not necessarily. I've seen a few instances where the non-custodial parent applied for and received the CTB, resulting in the custodial parent losing the CTB (and getting threatening letters about overpayments).

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
He earns much more than me, and is not a student as I am trying to get through University.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
Since I work during Mon-Fri it's difficult for me to get to the FLIC.

---

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Try to look on that first year not as some kind of negative but a wonderful opportunity to have plenty of time with your baby; think of it as the guy doing you an (admittedly inadvertant) favour.

When you're at work or school the toddler is with her grandma. When he's at work the toddler is with the woman who will probably be her step-mom. Or if she is working, with her other grandma.

The absolutely hardest challenge a single mom faces is not purely "economic", the most difficult thing is to try to pull your own bruised ego out of the picture. Any strife or tension between the mother and father will only impact the little girl.

Yes, he's playing control games with money. That game is cruel but it is not unusual, far too many men use their increased earning power as a club. That doesn't mean you have to turn into a doormat. Go to legal aid. Present a calm and workable alternative to the present custody/visitation agreement, one which gives you alternate weekends.

And even if you damn near choke doing it, when it's time for this little girl to go to her other home (and it IS her other home and she is entitled to all the benefits), make it seem as if you think it's a fine thing.

You might be enraged at this guy right now but try to keep in mind that at one time you thought highly enough of him to get pregnant by him.

There's probably a woman's group or women's counselling service in or near Belleville..look for it. Maybe the local rape relief women could steer you in the right direction. You've got another sixteen to seventeen years of having this guy in your life. Equip yourself to deal with any damfool stunt at all, and deal with it without coming apart all over the kids emotional map.

And for crying in the night try to remain polite and pleasant to the "step mom". SHE could well wind up your best ally in this tangled mess.

Above all, remember that to this little girl this guy is "daddy".

There were times I nearly puked at some of the stunts my ex pulled. I did not always manage to zip my lip, either! The result? Today two of his three kids are hardly in contact with him and he has only his own actions and misbehaviours to blame for that . Don't make excuses for him but don't sink the hatchet into his throat every chance you get.

Keep your daughter's best interests at the forefront and it doesn't hurt to take an anger management course. Very often family court can provide someone to be a referee or conciliator... and if he gets gnarly with that person he's just blown his own boat out of the water!

It's a hard one. But pyrrhic victories don't do anyone any good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
Yes, he's playing control games with money. That game is cruel but it is not unusual, far too many men use their increased earning power as a club. That doesn't mean you have to turn into a doormat. Go to legal aid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
You've got me confused.

---

I just find it hard to get to places during the week, such as the FLIC.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

And keep your receipts for clothing, etc. Is he really buying half her clothes?

---

I do keep receipts. And yes, he buys her clothes. His common-law spouse is very wealthy and is buying things for her often enough - they keep the items at their house, but it's still helping.

There was some mention about tension and such, but that was not a big issue. There is no anger, except for maybe minutes infrequently. There is no crying, likely on his side either. There is no resentment, on my side at least. I'm just trying to find out what is fair, not to "get" anything out of this. Even when it comes to child support, when I am done school and hopefully have a better job, I wouldn't ask for child support and if I did it would go straight into the scholarship fund I set up myself for my daughter, or into her savings account in trust she has. Her father and I were friends after our separation and though we may argue (discuss) items, there are no swear words, or loud voices, and in front of our little girl we even chat very very briefly when picking her up or dropping her off. The only time there is confrontation is through letters from our lawyer or possibly emails if we're trying to work something out together to minimize legal costs. And even in emails it's just discussion and we keep it as non-emotional as we can in order not to overstep our boundaries. There isn't an issue of hatred or any of the other feelings that cause unnessary suffering.

I'm only going through court because he won't agree that he should pay child support when it's obvious to any court that I need money to help my little girl live comfortably and warm (not for going out and spending it foolishly like so many people assume mother's of child support do - just stereotypes because of the Majority's mistakes). And because he refuses to compromise about letting me be with her on the weekend days when I'm not working and he is. I can only say with words that I truly just want whats fair, I just hope that it means that I can be with her on my days off instead of having it so I'm with her on my working days. he has two different days off than me.

For example, I have weekends off, he has Thursdays and Fridays off because he works in a factory, but has managed to get the boss to keep his days off unflexing. But he takes her Thursdays around noon he picks her up at gramma's house, until Sunday evening or night (1/2 the week) because it's convenient for him and his spouse to keep it that way. But that means the days she is with me, Sunday night until Thursday morning before I go to work, I'm working 9-5. So I just don't get to see her much anymore. All I want is to be able to pick her up Saturday sometime, so I have Sat and all day Sunday to spend time with her. It only seems logical.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:


You've got me confused.

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

---

Oh I see - I am taking 1 class per semester through continuing education at the school. It's taking forever, but I'm half-way done and have probably 3 more years to go. I'm hoping that by the last of 6 semesters I can somehow do it all at once (4 or 5 courses). I want to finish right away so that I may potentially earn enough as my daughter's dad so that he won't have to pay child support, and just for our own good, but it just isn't affordable at this time and working fulltime and school part-time has been working well. I also have my own mortgage, so am concentrating on that as well.

[ 17 December 2005: Message edited by: estershannon2 ]

My only advice would be to try mediation first. The hourly fees for mediation are a fraction of the $250/hour I paid in legal fees. If you can't come to a mutually fair agreement then take the next steps.

My ex refused to pay child support for the first 8 years. He would cry poverty and tell me he'd eventually pay me back all the money he owed. "Next month." "Next paycheck." ...and similar empty promises. Eventually he got tired of me asking him for the support and flat-out refused to pay. I spent the next two years in a legal battle that cost me thousands and thousands of dollars. In the end we reached an agreement through mediation. I was unable to get compensation for the 8 years I'd gone without child support.

However, I share custody 50% with my youngest daughter, because my x and I earn similar ammounts this cancels out my child support for this child only.

Child support payments are based on the incomes of the parents, his child support is based on his income not yours. If he makes $60k then he pays a percentage of that for each child. If your incomes are the same the payments will cancel each other out. However, if you are on say $30k your payment to him for child support will be based on that, meaning he will owe you the difference between the two.

Currently my x gets all the child benefit as there are 3 other children to consider.

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
Do you have to split the Child Tax Benefit if you and the father of your child have the child 50% of the week?
He refuses to pay Child Support and threatens that if I make him pay the Child Support he owes based on the Guidelines, he will apply for half of the CTC. He says they will give him half, and may also make me pay amounts from when he should have gotten half of it for the past months meaning I'll owe him retroactive amounts of the credit. My expenses are almost exactly equal to my income, so I budget extremely hard to not get into debt.

He earns much more than me, and is not a student as I am trying to get through University. I have been with the child since he was born and he has only been there for the past few months. Our daughter is 2 years old and neither of us have full custody, but right now I would assume full custody until we have a court appoint Joint Custody. I don't want his money, but I need it. I do not smoke, drink, and most of my spending goes towards our child.

And I'm a single mother, and he is living with someone who earns a decent income (better than my income, anyway, if not the same).

He says it's greedy for me to ask for child support from him when he has the child 50% of the time. But I need it, and the guidelines show he is obligated to pay base on his salaray VS mine. Is this really being greedy? Can he really take half of the CTC when I will not be able to support my child without his support AND the CTC? Is this justice? Has anyone has similar issues?

Thank you,
Shannon

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rockerbiff:
he will owe you the difference between the two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
try mediation first. The hourly fees for mediation are a fraction of the $250/hour I paid in legal fees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Unfortunately Belleville has not yet unified, so you likely don't have one.

---

No, I could not find one. I do have an apt with someone from legal aid on Wed after Christmas so will see how it goes. I'm stalling in hopes we can work this out without court but we'll see. I'm not in this world for money or greed, and I truly (I can't emphasize) that I just want to know what's fair. Just seems that a judge is the only "judge" of what is fair, as our lawyers just negotiate. However, if both parties can compromise, it's the only way to know we're getting what's fair (even if it ends up what's fair is not what I want, at least I'll know it was fair so can accpet it).

Based on one side of the story? From the sperm receptacle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by estershannon2:
he only decided to take her half the time was to get to stop paying child support. He only started taking her once I asked for the child support that the guidelines said he did.

---

A man who wasn't willing to help with kid care when his daughter was an infant and who only jumped in when not jumping might have cost him money doesn't deserve the honorific "father". To this particular little girl he is "daddy", and I'm sure she adores him. It is my sincere hope she not be cruelly disappointed in the future.

quote:

---

Magoo, I'm sorry if the term "sperm donor" hurt your feelings.

---

It doesn't "hurt my feelings". It's just inappropriate, and IMHO, unnecessary.

I don't know if you're trying to make this unnecessarily personal, or if you really just don't get it.

quote:

---

And you're right; to a lot of men a woman is merely a "sperm receptacle".

---

Exactly.

And if a guy did that on babble I'd expect him to get his fingers smacked.

And if the same guy said "Aw gee, did I hurt you ladies' feelings?" I'd expect he'd get them smacked again.

I guess the best question is "Is that kind of descriptor really necessary?" Do you feel it adds something meaningful to the debate? Or does it just feel good to you to say?

[burp]

Paging Mr. Magoo.

[tweak]

There is a Cuba thread, as yet unattended by you presently in play in the board.

[bleep]

Some of us read her and feel she is deserving of a little support - and this is definitely the place she can come for that.

If you're not interested, Magoo, you know very well what you can do.

quote:

---

Based on one side of the story? From the sperm receptacle?

---

Duh. Yes Magoo, the apology is warranted. You pointedly labelled a fellow Babbler a "sperm receptacle". You kicked a woman when she's down all in the name of being 'fair'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Does it?

Based on one side of the story? From the sperm receptacle?

OK, as long as we're fair about it.

---

How did I miss this the first time 'round?

The match for "sperm donor" is not "sperm receptacle" - not, that is, unless you are incurably male-centred, or patriarchal, as they say.

The match for "sperm donor" is ovum, or "ovum donor," followed by womb or uterus, and that for about nine months, accompanied by significant changes and costs to the material self.

Sorry, but this is the feminism forum and Mr Magoo's thoughtless error above is indeed thoughtlessly sexist and very much in need of policing.

The world is full of people who interpret "fairness" to mean that we are all of us, male and female both, equal little worker units and that attempts to correct for systemic inequality are always to be cancelled out immediately by the invocation of that ideology.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

The match for "sperm donor" is not "sperm receptacle" - not, that is, unless you are incurably male-centred, or patriarchal, as they say.

---

So, maybe those who are just here to pick arguments could go do it somewhere else. We're trying to have a discussion here about child custody legal issues, and it's been completely sidetracked, and I think Magoo bears the most responsibility for that. Especially for his way-out-of-line insult towards estershannon (calling her "the sperm receptacle") when she had absolutely nothing to do with this little dust-up. So, Magoo, you can stay out of this thread from now on unless you have something substantial to say about the thread topic.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

It's almost guaranteed, and in the best interest of your daughter, that you'll have shared access. She will be spending some time with mommy and some time with daddy - sometimes you'll hear this called co-parenting.

I'm a big believer in the power of words. In a co-parenting arrangement you may wish to train yourself out of referring to your two homes as "mommy's house" and "daddy's house". These terms make it sound like the child has no home of her own and is merely a guest being shuttled back and forth between parents. Better to use street names, the colour of the home's exterior, or some other characteristic as identifiers, ie: "This weekend you are with mommy at your blue house."

If you spin it right, your daughter can come to see her life as being enriched by having not just one, but two loving homes to call her own.

She can also come to see step parents as 'bonus parents' - extra adults she can rely on and be loved by. A fave quote from "About a Boy" sums it up for me:

I'm sure a mediator will set up a more equitable access situation for you; alternate weekends would be fair and would be, I think, in the best interests of the little girl.

It's tough, I know. I've been there and for a while it really did look like one of the outer rims of hell. It gets better. (yeah, I promise).

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
"to your blue house...", what a wonderful way to help the kid accept the not quite usual circumstances of her life! Emily is moving steadily on toward 4 and still refers to my place as "my house with grandma". She also has "my house with mom'n'dad". She likes "my baftub at Grandma's" better because it's a big old claw-footed thing but "my baftub at mom'n'dads" has a shower, so it's not a total loss.

---