Oh, those nutty Canadian Kourts...

wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)

Janderson wrote:
I have heard a similar situation from an attorney friend. Biodad was
in jail. Mom is a stripper. Decent dude makes a mistake, marries
stripper, she stops stripping, and he adopts the kids. Decent dude
makes good money. Marriage does last a year. Biodad gets out of the
can and marries mom. The attorney I know represented the decent
dude, CS till the kids, two of them, turn 18. Sad, right? 25% of his
income for around 12 years to an excon and a ex-stripper.

Sad that his marriage didn't last? Possibly, but it sounds like he's well
out of it.

Sad if he went after custody and failed? Yes.

Sad if he's being prevented from having a father's role in the children's
lives? Definitely!

Sad that he gets to pay child support for children he legally adopted? No,
not at all.

You don't get to walk away from your responsibilities to adopted children.
If he meant the adoption to be conditional on the success of his marriage to
their mother he shouldn't have adopted them at all! He made a legal and
moral commitment. I can understand a judge holding him to that and, if he
really is a "decent dude", his remaining in the children's lives is in their
best interests.


Tai

"Tai" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)

Janderson wrote:
I have heard a similar situation from an attorney friend. Biodad was
in jail. Mom is a stripper. Decent dude makes a mistake, marries
stripper, she stops stripping, and he adopts the kids. Decent dude
makes good money. Marriage does last a year. Biodad gets out of the
can and marries mom. The attorney I know represented the decent
dude, CS till the kids, two of them, turn 18. Sad, right? 25% of his
income for around 12 years to an excon and a ex-stripper.

Tai wrote: Sad that his marriage didn't last? Possibly, but it sounds like
he's well out of it.

Sad if he went after custody and failed? Yes.

Sad if he's being prevented from having a father's role in the children's
lives? Definitely!

Sad that he gets to pay child support for children he legally adopted? No,
not at all.

Good point, Tai. I missed that little detail. The "decent" dude *adopted*
the kids. They're his now.

Tai wrote:
You don't get to walk away from your responsibilities to adopted children.

I wonder if the bio-father wants to adopt back his own children? Right now,
in the legal sense, he's his own children's step-father! However, if the
father who adopted them can reliquish those children back to the bio-father,
he can then free himself of those child support payments. Would the
bio-father refuse to adopt his own children? They're living with him now.
And if he says, "No," how would those children feel?

An interesting scenario! I wonder if Janderson spoke to his lawyer friend
about that angle? Perhaps there is a way to extricate this father who had
adopted the kids? If this father were to go to an adoption agency and say
he wants to relinquish the children into their bio-father's care because he
is now married to the mother, I wonder what would happen?

Janderson, is there a way you can find out a little more about this case?
That legal friend of yours, was he the guy representing the man who had
adopted the children?

I would love to know more about this.

Heidi

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:u52nf.2927$9G.1106@dukeread10...

(snip)

Ron wrote:
Forget that, the message is "Men, never ever babysit a friend's kids,
because YOU TOO could get hit up for CS for the next 18 years!"

Did the babysitter live with the family for a number of years? Did the
babysitter pay for the children's needs and augment their lifestyle
financially?

Bear in mind this step-father lived with the child for a number of years and
tended to this child in any number of ways socially and financially, despite
money being also provided by the bio-father. The occasional baby-sitter
doesn't do that.

Heidi

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:I42nf.2926$9G.539@dukeread10...


(snip)

Heidi wrote:
The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was what
was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that the
step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then that's
what will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child for a
number of years and that child had benifitted not only from the
bio-father's support, but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that
child's quality of life despite another divorce may have been a factor in
this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge
may rule to be "in the best interest of the child."

Werebat wrote:
OK...

I live with my girlfriend in her house, and have for the last 2-3 years.

....and in Canada that would allow the girlfriend or you, or both, to claim
"common-law marriage" in the event your living together arrangement falls
apart. One doesn't need to register a common-law marriage. It kicks in
automatically. Check your own State rules regarding this possibility.

Werebat wrote:
My son from a previous marriage, who I have in my physical care 50% of
the time, lives with us said 50% of the time.

GF is a doctor and earns about three times my salary. Should we ever
split, should she be required to pay CS to me? What is the likelihood
that the same court that made the decision above would award me CS from my
GF?

Hard to say. Are you living in Canada? If your living-together arrangement
fails, your high-earning doctor common-law wife *could* potentially be
slapped with a child support order if the judge thinks it's in the child's
best interest. She could also be told to give you a share of the value of
her house.


Would it matter if we were married and then divorced?

After a year or two just living together in Canada, man and woman are
treated as common-law married. It kicks in automatically. Unmarried people
who live together for a time can be treated as if married. This allows for
any children to get support should such a living arrangement fail. Check
your own State laws about this matter.


Is there a greater likelihood that they would order my GF to pay my EX,
for some ungodly reason?

Well, if you have the child for 50% of the time, it may be possible to hold
your GF responsible for 25%. ;-)

It's a decision a judge *could* make. Whether or not he/she will, I really
don't know. The child's best interests are kept in mind. The judge will
look at the details and make a decision based on those.

Heidi

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


(snip)

Heidi wrote:
Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge
may rule to be "in the best interest of the child."

teachrmama wrote: I don't buy it. Otherwise, I could sue my children's
uncle for child support because he is a so very kind to them and always has
plenty of money. It would certainly be in their best interests if he
contributed a chunk of change each month!

Are you married to your uncle? Does your uncle live with you and the
children? Are you and your uncle living together as marrieds? Step-fathers
do, but uncles?

Heidi

"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:lFanf.97102$Gd6.52957@pd7tw3no...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:I42nf.2926$9G.539@dukeread10...


(snip)

Heidi wrote:
The only thing I can think of that the judge may have considered was
what was in the "best interests of the child." If he/she believed that
the step-father support that child as well as that bio-father, then
that's what will be ruled. That step-father did live with that child
for a number of years and that child had benifitted not only from the
bio-father's support, but the step-father's as well. Maintaining that
child's quality of life despite another divorce may have been a factor
in this decision.

Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge
may rule to be "in the best interest of the child."

Werebat wrote:
OK...

I live with my girlfriend in her house, and have for the last 2-3 years.

...and in Canada that would allow the girlfriend or you, or both, to claim
"common-law marriage" in the event your living together arrangement falls
apart. One doesn't need to register a common-law marriage. It kicks in
automatically. Check your own State rules regarding this possibility.

Werebat wrote:
My son from a previous marriage, who I have in my physical care 50% of
the time, lives with us said 50% of the time.

GF is a doctor and earns about three times my salary. Should we ever
split, should she be required to pay CS to me? What is the likelihood
that the same court that made the decision above would award me CS from
my GF?

Hard to say. Are you living in Canada? If your living-together
arrangement fails, your high-earning doctor common-law wife *could*
potentially be slapped with a child support order if the judge thinks it's
in the child's best interest. She could also be told to give you a share
of the value of her house.


Would it matter if we were married and then divorced?

After a year or two just living together in Canada, man and woman are
treated as common-law married.

It's not quite that simple - there are a variety of conditions that are
required, such as presenting oneself to the community as married, and being
accepted by the community as married, before it is considered to be a
common-law marriage.

It kicks in automatically. Unmarried people
who live together for a time can be treated as if married. This allows
for any children to get support should such a living arrangement fail.
Check your own State laws about this matter.


Is there a greater likelihood that they would order my GF to pay my EX,
for some ungodly reason?

Well, if you have the child for 50% of the time, it may be possible to
hold your GF responsible for 25%. ;-)

It's a decision a judge *could* make. Whether or not he/she will, I
really don't know. The child's best interests are kept in mind. The
judge will look at the details and make a decision based on those.

Heidi

"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:CJanf.92117$ki.20538@pd7tw2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


(snip)

Heidi wrote:
Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge
may rule to be "in the best interest of the child."

teachrmama wrote: I don't buy it. Otherwise, I could sue my children's
uncle for child support because he is a so very kind to them and always
has plenty of money. It would certainly be in their best interests if he
contributed a chunk of change each month!

Are you married to your uncle? Does your uncle live with you and the
children? Are you and your uncle living together as marrieds?
Step-fathers do, but uncles?
====
OK, say you marry a man who turns out to be not so motivated and loses his
job.
You and he have custody of his 2 kids and you are the only one working. Say
you get
fed up with his laziness and move out. A couple weeks later you are served
with
notice to appear at a child support hearing to determine how much support
you should
pay him for his two kids. Since you know it's "in the best interest" of the
kids for you
to pay support for them, you show up at the hearing and it is determined
that you owe
support for the kids of $200. per week and income withholding will commence
within
two weeks. No problem?
====

"Heidi Graw" wrote in message
news:CJanf.92117$ki.20538@pd7tw2no...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


(snip)

Heidi wrote:
Anyway, it's something step-fathers may want to prepare themselves for.
They *could* be hit up for support, too. It depends on what the judge
may rule to be "in the best interest of the child."

teachrmama wrote: I don't buy it. Otherwise, I could sue my children's
uncle for child support because he is a so very kind to them and always
has plenty of money. It would certainly be in their best interests if he
contributed a chunk of change each month!

Are you married to your uncle? Does your uncle live with you and the
children? Are you and your uncle living together as marrieds?
Step-fathers do, but uncles?

It's the "in the best interests of the children" line that I don't buy. If
the only thing that is considered is "the best interests of the children"
and the only thing that measures the "best interest of the children" is $$$,
then, conceivably, anyone can be pulled into that scenario. Such as both a
bio dad and a step dad ordered to pay child support. That's outrageous!!
How can telling children that sucking money out of every man with whom their
mother forms a temporary relationship is in their best interest? How can
the courts be so ignorant as to the message they are sending?

Heidi Graw wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:u52nf.2927$9G.1106@dukeread10...


(snip)


Ron wrote:
Forget that, the message is "Men, never ever babysit a friend's kids,
because YOU TOO could get hit up for CS for the next 18 years!"


Did the babysitter live with the family for a number of years? Did the
babysitter pay for the children's needs and augment their lifestyle
financially?

Bear in mind this step-father lived with the child for a number of years and
tended to this child in any number of ways socially and financially, despite
money being also provided by the bio-father. The occasional baby-sitter
doesn't do that.

Show me where in the law it makes the distinction that you just did.

For a woman to be collecting two CS awards from two different men for
one kid is insane. Since common sense doesn't seem to apply here, it
must be the letter of the law that does. Again, show me where in the
letter of the law a CS award from a one-time babysitter is prohibited.

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:Vmgnf.3925$9G.2846@dukeread10...


Heidi Graw wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:u52nf.2927$9G.1106@dukeread10...


(snip)


Ron wrote:
Forget that, the message is "Men, never ever babysit a friend's kids,
because YOU TOO could get hit up for CS for the next 18 years!"


Did the babysitter live with the family for a number of years? Did the
babysitter pay for the children's needs and augment their lifestyle
financially?

Bear in mind this step-father lived with the child for a number of years
and
tended to this child in any number of ways socially and financially,
despite
money being also provided by the bio-father. The occasional baby-sitter
doesn't do that.

Show me where in the law it makes the distinction that you just did.

For a woman to be collecting two CS awards from two different men for
one kid is insane. Since common sense doesn't seem to apply here, it
must be the letter of the law that does. Again, show me where in the
letter of the law a CS award from a one-time babysitter is prohibited.

It's not. And to follow the logic of the previous poster, because the
babysitter cared for the child, they must pay money to such child's mother
for the next decade or so. What's next? People who make voluntary donations
to poor children through sponsor programs will also be on the hook?


- Ron ^*^