Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    What makes you think the support payment scheduled you have agreed to
    is fixed.  While it's safe to assume whatever equity/debt arrangement
    will remain executed my understanding is that the same is never true
    for support payments.

    A "change in circumstance" is all that is usually required to modify a
    support decree.  The court is well within it's purview to modify
    regardless of prior agreement.

    -Bob

re: .1,

>    What makes you think the support payment scheduled you have agreed to
>    is fixed.  While it's safe to assume whatever equity/debt arrangement
>    will remain executed my understanding is that the same is never true
>    for support payments.

Not saying it is fixed, odds are it is more likely to go up than down. In two
legal opinions from two different legal firms, it is much harder for the CP to
increase the child support amount if the CP was given a lump sum as part of the
child support obligation. The court will take a very dim view of the CP if in
the short term the CP tries to get more. This is at least applicable in Ontario,
and in the U.S., maybe it's looked at differently.

I have no decision to make here my self, mine was made over a year ago with one
legal wording glitch. This scenario was created for discussion purposes as we are
doing now.

IMHO, selecting one of the two options has to be based upon more than the
long term financial cost of supporting your child(ren). You too have a life you
must lead, your future SO, future child(ren) and the child(ren) from your past
life. The data is just a starting place, we realize that interest rates,
inflation rate, and child support amount could and will vary.

I hope this may clarify the intent of this discussion.

John

    NEVER assume the settlement is permanent.  My hubby paid his ex child
    support from day one - almost 12 years ago (more than the court would
    have made him pay), agreed to continue to pay that amount while his ex
    finished school (4+ years), (she's an electrician and was working
    during her schooling) gave her house, car, etc. with the understanding
    that once she graduated, got her license and was receiving her full
    pay, the payment would be cut in half.
    
    That was fine for a few years.  Then she met someone, sold her house,
    moved out of state, bought a business, lost most of her equity.  
    
    She ended up with $125,000.00+ in equity from the sale, invested in a
    business which failed within 9 months, lost or blew most of the equity
    and then wanted more $ for child support.  She got remarried,
    bought another house (of which the down payment came entirely from
    her), bought all new furniture, etc.  Not only more $ but also she
    wants him to pay for their college education.  Of course, she got what
    she was looking for which really pissed my husband off because he had
    no recourse.  Since she has moved out of state, she has literally cut
    the kids off from him.  A quote from her "As far as I'm concerned the
    kids don't have a father".  Sad to say he has kind of given up trying
    to contact them partially due to the fact the last few times he had
    them he couldn't take the nasty remarks they kept making to him.  All
    of them being things his ex had stated and they were repeating.  I
    can't believe she would stoop so low but she has MANY times.  After
    their visits he was so depressed and I think he has just given up.
       
    My husbands feelings are had she reinvested her full equity, her
    current mortgage would have been $25,000.00 (not bad considering her
    and her current husbands salaries combined are over $120,000.00 a
    year!) instead of $125,000.00 and would not need the additional child
    support based on the intial agreement.  He said his biggest mistake was
    being the Good Guy at the beginning because so far it has blown up in
    his face!  He feels the agreement they had made in the initial decree
    was literally useless!  WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT having a decree is if you
    are paying child support.  The additional money is not going towards
    the kids; it's to pay for all her trips to the islands, built in pool,
    the large master suite/bath that she just added to her house complete
    with steamroom/jacuzzi, etc.
    
    No one is trying to deny her happiness but now we are having to pay for
    all her mistakes and stupidity.  I'm not saying she is a bad person but
    enough is enough!
    
    Sorry for the lengthy note - I guess this is the first time I've really
    put all this in writing.
    
    My advise - Watch out for compromises!!  They are always reversible!!!
    
    
    

    I have to agree taht compromises are a bad idea.  If you voluntarily
    take on *all* the debt, there isn't much you can do to renegotiate,
    but there is *absolutely nothing* to prevent "theex" from going back into
    court six months later and sticking it to you for more child support.
    
    Change of curcumstance--he has paid off all the bills so therefore
    he has more disposable income to pay support with.  And how can 
    the court *possibly* deny the darling little *children* the support
    they *deserve*.
    
    fred();

re: .3, .4,

So, the the message I get here is, take your equity and your half of the debits
and run, being mister nice guy only sets you up to be sh*t upon later.

I also read from your points that, when it comes to the CP and children, the
separation agreement or what ever, has it's uses for the CP. When it comes to
the NCP, it is a useless piece of paper. By this, as NCP's, we know that child
support can never be agreed upon or put in writing because the court has the
right to change it as they see fit, a fact of life. But the issue of trading
equity/debits is a bad move because, once again the court can choose to ignore
the comprimise and force you to shell out more child support.

So, no matter how generous the NCP is and has shown to be reasonable upfront,
when it comes to child support, it really is like taking your equity and tossing
it into the river in the long run.

    
    re .5  
    That's about the size of it.
    
    The courts are interested in "what's best for the children", not
    "what's fair because you made an agreement with your ex".
    
    If a year or two down the road "theex" goes back to court all hang
    dog and says "gee Your Honor I know I made this agreement, but I 
    reeeealy got shafted by the agreeement ane the *children* reeeeely 
    neeeeed more money", you're going to get shafted *again* and probably 
    *still* be stuck with the bills.
    
    fred();