Are you liable for child support if marrying a woman with kids and divorcing later?

[Jabulani22]

The courts look at the income of both parents, no assumption is made, it must be proven.

So you are saying that decisions are fair and not overwhelmingly in favour of women ?
I'm not sure that is what's going on .

 

[krycor]

I would say not to overthink the matter. Sharing in the expenses wouldn’t make you obligated. It is the moment you are starting to make the decisions which are in the children’s best interest which will make you obligated. Obviously, you and the mother may consult each other.

It is best to read the case in detail to better comprehend the circumstances.

MB v NB (2008/25274) [2009] ZAGPJHC 76; 2010 (3) SA 220 (GSJ) (25 August 2009)

www.saflii.org

Basically, when you bond with your stepson, and you undertake to participate in his development and share in his upbringing that you are committed to those expenses. In the case you divorce, pending on the circumstances, you cannot expect to terminate your contribution and expect the mother to inherit those costs. A divorce doesn't void that agreement. As you read in the court order all circumstances were taken under consideration and were ruled accordingly. It wasn't unreasonable in my view.

Basically it comes down to intent.. at the end of the day as long as you have it documented as an expense you gifting / temporarily paying with/out repayment it doesn't auto become an ongoing cost. This happens a lot in maintenance court where the mom marries or is involved with a higher income spouse and the ex / child's father tries to shift costs claiming he can't maintain albeit the mom e.g. is unemployed.

Had this battle before and then suddenly they try the Israeli new norm, facts on the ground change argument. I'm not one to let the kid suffer because the dad is an idiot though but you need to make sure you do limit your financial burden.

 

[scudsucker]

...nowdays judgements are almost always against the male

Judgements are made in favour of the child, not "for" or "against" a parent.

 

[Kosmik]

So you are saying that decisions are fair and not overwhelmingly in favour of women ?
I'm not sure that is what's going on .

I only have a few personal references around it but yes, all have been fair.

It's about the child not the mother, the money is not for her and she can be made to account for it by the father /court as well.

 

[Brenden_E]

Judgements are made in favour of the child, not "for" or "against" a parent.

Ludicrous that a man can be held responsible financially for a child that's not his.
In the same spirit, it's in favor of some child in Soweto to get some of my money too. And, in fact, he does via the welfare state!

Now imagine this same man cannot afford to have his own kids because he's being coerced by threat of imprisonment to pay for kids that are not his. The system is borked and unjust.

 

[scudsucker]

Ludicrous that a man can be held responsible financially for a child that's not his.
In the same spirit, it's in favor of some child in Soweto to get some of my money too. And, in fact, he does via the welfare state!

Now imagine this same man cannot afford to have his own kids because he's being coerced by threat of imprisonment to pay for kids that are not his. The system is borked and unjust.

You certainly sound like the type of man who should not have children.

 

[Kosmik]

Ludicrous that a man can be held responsible financially for a child that's not his.
In the same spirit, it's in favor of some child in Soweto to get some of my money too. And, in fact, he does via the welfare state!

Now imagine this same man cannot afford to have his own kids because he's being coerced by threat of imprisonment to pay for kids that are not his. The system is borked and unjust.

Read the judgement, it's not around maintenance but the fact that the step father decided to up the childs education quality. There was no onus on him for that but it's unfair to the child that he now suffered because of its loss by the step father or the mother being solely liable for the joint debt that they BOTH signed.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Bread winner - the term used to have meaning when only the male worked and supported the whole nuclear family , nowdays judgements are almost always against the male because the laws have not been overhauled to reflect the empowerment of women and still assume the male is the bread winner while the woman is not.

You have heard way too many stories. The court takes all circumstances and the children's best interest into consideration. In addition to this, they have calculation sheets and here you need to be prepared with your bank statements, etc. Many people don't like to share their income and bank statements with the court and then they complain about it...

Most parties reach a settlement in any case, and both parties agreed to that settlement. Once this settlement has been activated as an order by the court you may still go to the court to reevaluate your circumstances. Likewise, with the abovementioned, not too many people go to the court to reevaluate their circumstances and then they complain about it...

Primary care isn't always placed with the mother.

 

[Brenden_E]

Read the judgement, it's not around maintenance but the fact that the step father decided to up the childs education quality. There was no onus on him for that but it's unfair to the child that he now suffered because of its loss by the step father or the mother being solely liable for the joint debt that they BOTH signed.

I'm sure he got incredible value from the improved education while it lasted. No reason he cannot go back to a cheaper education facility now that the stepfather will not provide it. The entitlement to think the state can now coerce this father to keep paying, absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Brenden_E]

You certainly sound like the type of man who should not have children.

Because I don't believe a man should be forced to pay for other men's children under the threat of imprisonment? I don't even want to know how you managed to come to that conclusion.

 

[Jabulani22]

Judgements are made in favour of the child, not "for" or "against" a parent.

It's against you if you have to pay and have limitations on seeing the child.

 

[Jabulani22]

I only have a few personal references around it but yes, all have been fair.

It's about the child not the mother, the money is not for her and she can be made to account for it by the father /court as well.

Worldwide it seems mothers are given preference , even when comparing income etc.

 

[Kosmik]

I'm sure he got incredible value from the improved education while it lasted. No reason he cannot go back to a cheaper education facility now that the stepfather will not provide it. The entitlement to think the state can now coerce this father to keep paying, absolutely ridiculous.

Its not so cut and dried and the child is currently in a public school. Apparently the father was going to adopt, and they went as far as to change the child's name and fully sign as parent in the liability of fees. That is a different contract and not one that can be escaped by a divorce.

That is a special judgement though and would be very difficult to use as a precedent in another case. The standard ruling is that a step parent is not responsible for a child of another union SAVE if they were adopted, which is what the above ruling infers to.

 

[Kosmik]

Worldwide it seems mothers are given preference , even when comparing income etc.

It depends on the child and the child's state and age.

 

[Jabulani22]

You have heard way too many stories. The court takes all circumstances and the children's best interest into consideration. In addition to this, they have calculation sheets and here you need to be prepared with your bank statements, etc. Many people don't like to share their income and bank statements with the court and then they complain about it...

Most parties reach a settlement in any case, and both parties agreed to that settlement. Once this settlement has been activated as an order by the court you may still go to the court to reevaluate your circumstances. Likewise, with the abovementioned, not too many people go to the court to reevaluate their circumstances and then they complain about it...

Primary care isn't always placed with the mother.

It may not always fall to the mother but I suspect it's does have baked in presumptions that assist women with preferential treatment.

 

[scudsucker]

Worldwide it seems mothers are given preference , even when comparing income etc.

It's against you if you have to pay and have limitations on seeing the child.

Because I don't believe a man should be forced to pay for other men's children under the threat of imprisonment? I don't even want to know how you managed to come to that conclusion.

Oops, I didn't realise I had stumbled into a teenage MRM thread. Are we going to talk about how nice guys, like yourselves, can't get laid next?

 

[Jabulani22]

It depends on the child and the child's state and age.

Why would age past breast feeding age be a factor ?

 

[Jabulani22]

Oops, I didn't realise I had stumbled into a teenage MRM thread. Are we going to talk about how nice guys cant get laid next?

I dont even know what mrm is , nevermind a teenage one.

 

[Kosmik]

Why would age past breast feeding age be a factor ?

Because it depends who was the primary care giver at a younger age. If the mother , then it goes that way, if the father then that way. Its about the least disruption for the child.

 

[Jabulani22]

Because it depends who was the primary care giver at a younger age. If the mother , then it goes that way, if the father then that way. Its about the least disruption for the child.

By and large women would be "benefitting" from that , since men don't get nearly as much leave as women do regarding kids and birth.
Baked in presumptions which benefit women .