Revise the Canadian Child Support Guidelines

To: The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, the Canadian Child Support Guidelines (C.C.S.G’s) are unfair to the “second” families of parents who pay child support (payors).

THAT, the guidelines do not recognize the financial needs of any “second” children a payor may have in his care (in an intact family) when assigning the child support and “extra-ordinary” amounts to be paid for the “first” children.

THAT, the formula which calculates how much child support is to be paid contains 2 assumptions, i) that a payor has no other children in his/her care to financially support and ii) that the payor is a bachelor and has minimal expenses.

THAT, the payor often has to pay “extra-ordinary” expenses, in addition to child support, considerably increasing the amount they are obligated to pay.

THAT, only the income of the payor is used in determining how much child support to pay, and there are no provisions for ensuring the basic living expenses of the payor (and 2nd children) can be met, after child support and extras are paid.

THAT, there is no consideration in the guidelines for the additional expenses payors’ incur while caring for their children on their access time, above and beyond child support payments to the recipient, causing the payor to pay “twice”.

THAT, child support payments are based on “gross income”, the payor pays tax on the child support as if that income stayed in his/her household. The income is tax free to the recipient and his/her taxes are further reduced by dependent child exemptions and the child tax credits. These tax benefits and credits are not available to the payor.

THAT, government benefits assigned to “second” children, such as the Canadian Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), are based on the payor’s total income, without deducting the child support payments which directly leave their household. Thus, “second” children are entitled to lower CCTB, based on the true incomes in their households. “Second” families may not qualify for other government assistance as their household incomes are deemed higher than they actually are.

THAT, when the custodial parent moves away with the children, the cost of accessing the children lies with the payor. This can amount to thousands of dollars per year on top of child support and “extra-ordinary” expenses.

THAT, adult children of divorce are entitled (through the C.C.S.G’s) to have their parents contribute to their post-secondary education. If the child remains at the custodial parents home while attending school, the payor may be obligated to pay both child support and post-secondary costs, up to age 26. “Second” children do not have this right and supporting adult “first” children in this manner will result in continued financial hardship for the second family.

THAT, when a payor works over-time, or obtains a second job to improve the financial situation of his “second” family, this income is included in the calculation of child support. After paying increased child support, paying an increased proportion of “extra-ordinary” expenses, and incurring increased taxes, the second family is often left with little extra.

THAT, second wives are often instructed by judges in family court to return to work in order to support themselves and their subsequent children, losing their rights to be a stay-at-home mum. Many second wives believe that the C.C.S.G. recognize only the right of the “first” children to have a mother at home until school age, but this is not an option for them.

THAT, “second” children (in intact families) are not considered at all in the C.C.S.G’s unless the paying parent claims “undue hardship”. Hardship claims are only accepted when the hardship is “undue”, and the “second” family is in extreme peril, such losing their home. Second family concerns are very rarely accepted as a reason to lower child support and extra-expense obligations to the first born.

THAT, these significant inequities highlight the negative financial and psychological implications of belonging to a “second” family.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to revise the Canadian Child Support Guidelines so that ALL the children a payor has a moral and legal duty to support (whether from the first, the second or subsequent families, and regardless of whether the family is currently “intact” or not) are recognized in the Guidelines in such a manner that payors’ are able to provide equal treatment for all of their children.

THANK YOU!

Sincerely,