The children are finally 18, can I stop paying child support?

Jack’s brother, Sam, has twin daughters (Melany and Stephany) who will soon be 18 years old and who continue to live primarily with their mother since the separation. The adult girls have just graduated from high school.     Melany has been working in retail since she is 16 years old and in light of the career opportunities offered by her company she has decided for the time being to work full time in that industry and not pursue her post-secondary studies.    As for Stephany, she aspires to become a doctor and has been accepted to university.  Following the completion of her bachelor degree in sciences, she hopes to enter medical school to pursue her dream.    For the next three years, both girls intend to continue living with their mother   Sam wonders whether he still has an obligation to pay child support after the girls turn 18.

Child support does not necessarily end when a child turns 18.  Normally, child support will continue to be paid for an adult child if he/she enrolls into  a post-secondary study program or if the child is unable to support himself/herself as a result of a disability or illness.  When a child pursues a college or university education the child support obligation will usually end when the child receives his/her first post-secondary degree, although there are exceptions.

To the extent that the obligation to continue to pay child support exists, the monthly amount of support must be determined. This is where things get a bit more complicated.  Normally, if a child lives at home with one parent while pursuing his/her studies, the basic child support amount that was payable prior to the child turning 18 will likely continue to be payable after that date (this amount is set by the Federal Child Support Guidelines, based on the payor’s income). This makes sense since the “custodial” parent will have to continue to maintain a home for the child and to assume his/her day-to-day expenses (i.e., transportation, food, clothing).    However, if the child movesaway from home to attend school (normally 8 months out of 12), then the way child support is calculated would be different as we would have to take into consideration the child’s needs outside of the parent’s home, the reduced costs to the recipient parent when the child is living away from home and the child’s own ability to contribute to his or her living and school expenses.

In addition to paying the basic child support amount, the paying parent (such as Sam) would also have an obligation to contribute his/her share of the child’s extraordinary expenses.  These would include a portion of the child’s tuition fees, books and other school expenses, to the extent that the child is unable to cover all of those expenses with student loans, grants or their own income.

 

Although it may appear that child support obligations will never end, just remember that you are a parent for life.  In the end, giving your child a chance at living a successful and financially independent life (hopefully sooner rather than later…) is what you are here for in the first place, isn’t it?

If I have to see you in court honey, you’ll have to pay my legal fees!

Jack and Jill have been trying to settle their separation issues by themselves for a couple of months now. Jill is getting frustrated with Jack because he does not seem to take their separation seriously.   She does not see any other options than to retain a lawyer and go to court.  She is convinced that once they go to court the judge will tell Jack what he needs to hear.  But when Jill finally met with her lawyer, she was a bit surprised by (and disappointed with) her lawyer’s comments and reluctance to engage into a court action.  She wonders if she hired the right lawyer…  In fact, Jill’s lawyer has explained to her that the court process is not only very time and emotionally consuming, it will also be very costly.  However, Jill is convinced that she will win hands down on all issues and that, in the end,  Jack will be responsible to pay for all her legal fees.

 

Many separated couples believe that going to court is the only way they can get someone to pay attention to what they are saying. They believe that they are right, the other spouse is wrong and that the court room will be the venue where the winner will take it all.   But legal fees to get there are a very important aspect to consider when making the decision to resort to the judicial system.  While a court may order the “losing” spouse to pay part of the other spouse’s legal costs to prepare and attend court, it is highly unlikely that the judge will order that ALL costs incurred be paid back to the “winning” party.   In addition, considering that most cases eventually settle out of court (less than 3% of all family court cases end in a trial, where costs orders are made), opportunities to get the big fat cost order are very rare.

 

In addition, it is not because a party wins in court the he/she will necessarily get his/her legal costs paid by the loosing party. In deciding whether a party should be responsible to pay for the other’s court costs, the judge will look at different factors such as: Were the parties reasonable?  Did the spouses make reasonable efforts to settle the case?  Did one of the parties fail to accept a reasonable offer? Did one spouse act in bad faith? Did one spouse pursue unrealistic claims? and the list goes on and on…

 

So no one should ever go to court thinking that they will win it all, or thinking that the other party will have to pay their legal fees.  When making the decision to go to court, you need to start from the premise that any and all legal fees paid to your lawyer will be on you, and that you will be lucky if at the end of the day a judge orders your ex to pay some of them.  This is why it is so important to make sure that you have tried every possible way to settle out of court before you chose this very lengthy and costly avenue.

Why should I stress with work and let you relax at the spa!

Jack’s work environment has changed considerably lately and he feels lots of pressure to work excessive hours with short timelines.  He is currently experiencing health issues and his doctor has asked him to explore the possibility of taking an early retirement.  His employer has made it clear that hiring temporary help is out of the question.  Jack is seriously considering his doctor’s suggestion but wonders if, by taking an early retirement, his monthly support payments to Jill would be reduced or terminated.  After all, why should he stress with work while Jill spends his money relaxing at the spa!

 

If Jack is retiring for the sole purpose of reducing his support obligations, a court may impute him a higher salary than his retirement income, and calculate his support obligations based on what he used to earn before he retired.  This same principle applies to a payor who intentionally reduces his/her income to avoid paying support.   However, if Jack’s decision to retire is deemed reasonable (because it was prompted by medical reasons or some other « reasonable » cause), then his support payments may be reduced or even terminated.  In that case, the courts would look at many factors, including the following two important principles:

1. The nature of spousal support - Spousal support is an important and necessary means to share the financial impacts of separation which sometimes go well beyond the payor’s retirement.  In deciding whether or not the support obligation should be modified once the payor retires, the court will consider the nature of the support received by the recipient: (i) was the support ordered to compensate a spouse who stayed home throughout the marriage and who, as a result, did not have the opportunity to advance his/her career and earn a reasonable income? or (ii) was the support meant to alleviate a financial need, where a spouse  is unable to meet his/her personal monthly needs?  When support is based on compensation, the courts have often concluded that a spouse is considered to have been fully compensated by the time the payor retires.  However, when the support is based on needs, the courts have at times extended the obligation to pay beyond retirement. 

2. The “double dipping” principle -  The court will consider whether or not the payor’s pension was divided at separation through an “equalization payment” (the payment made between married spouses after a separation ensuring that each spouse ends up with assets of equal value for the period of the marriage).  If the pension was already divided as part of the property settlement agreed to by the spouses at separation, the court will try to avoid « double dipping ».   In other words, the court will avoid dipping again in the same source of funds (i.e. the pension) when granting support, unless the recipient has a significant need that cannot be addressed otherwise. 

 

Spousal support is a very complex area in family law and the payor’s retirement can add to the  complexity.  If retirement is a factor to be considered in your situation,  you  must consult a lawyer to ascertain your options and the impact your retirement may have on your financial situation.   Prior to meeting with your family law professional, take the time to understand the basic concepts of spousal support to use your time with your lawyer more efficiently (Knowledge is power and time is money!).  Visit our website at www.familylawinabox.com and listen to our program on Spousal Support (click here).

Remarriage and Spousal Support

Jill has met a new man.  He has never been married and asked her the other day if she would ever consider marriage again.  Jill always thought that once was enough but this man, Gary, is very kind, attentive to her needs and he is very respectful of the children.  He dreams of building a family life with Jill and believes that marriage would be the ultimate commitment. Jill is really not sure about this ‘marriage commitment thing’. She is also afraid that it may affect the monthly spousal support she is getting from Jack and that she has fought so hard to obtain… And then what happens if it does not work out with Gary?

If Jill remarries, she will be faced with three possible scenarios.  Her spousal support may be (1) terminated (2) reduced or (3) continue as is.  The main issue that will be considered by a court will be whether Jill’s remarriage is considered a “material change in circumstances”.  In order to change the spousal support terms of an agreement that you signed, you must show that something important changed in the parties’ circumstances and that if such changed circumstances had been present when the agreement was negotiated, it would have led to a different amount being paid.  So, if Jill’s remarriage was a clear possibility when she signed her agreement with Jack, and the agreement does not state that her remarriage would be “a material change in circumstances”, it is likely that Jill’s remarriage would have no impact on Jack’s future support obligations.

If Jill’s remarriage was not likely to occur in a foreseeable future when the parties signed their separation agreement, it is possible that her remarriage will be considered a “material change in circumstances” allowing Jack to ask that his support obligations be reviewed in light of Jill’s new family circumstances (and increase family income). This would not of course guarantee an automatic change, as Jill’s entitlement to support (particularly if it was being paid to her to compensate her for the economic disadvantages suffered during her marriage to Jack) might not change even if she is remarried.

Sometimes, a separation agreement specifically provides that spousal support will end if the recipient remarries.  In that case, the outcome would be quite clear and the spousal support would end the day Jill says “I do” for a second time. 

Spousal support is complex.  When dealing with this issue, courts (and lawyers and mediators) will have the following four objectives in mind: 

 

1) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; 

 

2) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

3) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and

4) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

 

If you are contemplating remarriage, spousal support is only one of the issues that you should  consider carefully with your legal advisor. Understanding how to protect your property in a second marriage (by entering into a marriage contract) is also key to happy endings. Visit our website at www.familylawinabox.com and listen to our program on Division of Family Property for Married Spouses (click here).

What? You moved away with the children!

Jill and Jack have been arguing for quite a while now.  For Easter, Jack took the children on holidays to his family in Toronto.  On Easter Monday, Jack sent Jill a text message saying the children would not be returning home that night as he had decided to permanently move to Toronto with the children in order to be closer to his immediate family.  Jill is in a state of shock and her first instinct is to call the police and charge him with kidnapping! All Jill wants is to get the children safely home as quickly as possible. Does Jack have the right to move out of town without telling her?

 

While Jack may certainly move, he cannot do so with the children and most importantly without speaking with Jill who has legal options available to her.  The very first thing that Jill should do is to IMMEDIATELY speak with a family lawyer as in custody matters of this kind, acting with all speed is absolutely crucial.  Every hour and every day that Jill delays in taking court action works against her chances of getting back the children quickly.

 

Under no circumstances should Jill consent to Jack’s removal of the children or sign any agreement that deals with custody and access matters until she and her lawyer have reviewed it.  Similarly, nor should Jill say or write anything to Jack that could be interpreted as agreeing with his removal of the children from the family home.  Jill will also be required to start an urgent court proceeding against Jack for the children's return. Custody proceedings are very fact-specific and to save time and legal fees, Jill will need to provide her lawyer with the following information:

 

1. the family’s background (names of the parties and their children, dates of birth, length of relationship, employment, income, etc.);

 

2. Short timeline of the main events leading up to Jack's removal of the children;

 

3. List of family members, daycare providers and friends who can help her care for the children if the court orders their return to the family home;

 

4. why it would be in the children’s best interest to be in your care until the matter is sorted out, and;

 

5. what access, if any, do you propose the other parent to have.

 

The reason for the parent's moving is irrelevant to the court unless it helps to determine the parent's ability to provide for the children's needs. When making parenting decisions, the courts sole concern is the child’s best interest – what are the child's needs and the ability of each parent to satisfy those needs. Of course, the relationship that the child has with each parent will also be examined. Courts do not like to introduce instability into the children’s lives, nor do they want children to remain in environments that leave them vulnerable to emotional and physical harm. Thus, the trend in the Ontario courts has been to disallow the removal of the children from their family home if there is no compelling reason to show that such a move is in their best interests. In Jack’s case, for instance, the court could order for example that he return the children to Jill or have the police apprehend him and return the children to Jill.

 

Moving away with the children without proper discussion and agreement between both parents will not only disrupt the children’s lives, it will create lots of fear and unnecessary anxiety. Speaking to a family law professional and with the other parent before making such a move is a must!

Just ask the Taxman and you shall receive money!

Tax filing season is here again. Jack knows that tax deductions and exemptions reduce the amount of income on which he has to pay tax, in contrast to a tax credit which means a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the actual amount of the tax that he has to pay.  Although Jack pays child support for the two children, he cannot deduct the amount from his income.   However, the monthly spousal support he pays Jill is a deductible amount.   Jack knows that he will owe the Taxman money again this year and as a good Canadian citizen he will pay his dues.  However, he is also looking at ways to keep money in his pockets as he would love to buy a pontoon boat which would make his summer vacation with the children so much fun. 

Here is a list of some child tax benefits and credits that might be available to you from the federal and Ontario governments:

1. Child Tax Credits - This federal credit can save you up to $329 for each child under the age of 18.

 

2. Canada Child Tax Benefits - The federal CCTB is calculated for July to June yearly and could bring in to a low-income family with two children up to $555 in additional savings.   If Jill and Jack shared custody of the children (50-50 or 70-30), the CCTB would be divided equally but since both kids reside with Jill (70-30), she is the only parent eligible to claim the CCTB.  In Ontario, depending on your income, you may also be eligible to claim the Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Supplement. 

 

3. GST Credit:  This federal tax-free quarterly payment helps individuals and families with modest income offset all or part of the GST that they pay.  To receive the GST credit you have to apply for it every year.

 

4. Child Fitness and Art Tax Credit – At the federal level, for each child under 16, parents may claim a tax credit of up to $500 registered in a sport like ballet, hockey and soccer and another $500 for artistic and cultural activities, like art or music lessons.  In addition, the Ontario government offers the Children’s Activity Tax Credit where you can claim up to $526 in eligible expenses and get up to $52.60 back for each child under 16.  You can receive up to $105.20 back for a child with a disability who is under 18.

 

5. Universal Child Care Benefit – The federal UCCB provides families with $100 per month for each child under the age of 6 or $1,200 per child, per year.

 

6. Eligible Dependant – If you were a single parent during 2012, you may be able to claim an eligible federal dependent tax credit for one of your children which is equivalent to claiming a dependent spouse.  However, whether or not you receive spousal support you are entitled to this credit.  In the case of Jack, since both kids reside with Jill, he may not claim them.

 

7. Child Care Education – Child care expense can be claimed to the federal government when you hire a babysitter or put your child in a daycare or summer camp to enable you to go to work (or attend school).  If you enrolled your child in a fitness program or summer camp, which operates during the hours you are working, then you must first claim the cost as a childcare expense.

 

8. Medical Expenses – Save your receipts whenever you buy glasses for your children or take them to the dentist as you may claim them at the federal level.  If you have a group health insurance plan at work, then only the portion that is not reimbursed is available for you to claim.

 

9. Child Disability Benefit - The federal and provincial governments provide child disability benefits.  If you believe your child is eligible for this benefit, ask your doctor or occupational therapist to complete a Disability Tax Credit form.

 

10. Tuition Tax Credit  - The federal government offers textbook amount and scholarship and bursary exemptions.  Also, if your child attends a university or a private school, you may claim the applicable tax credits from the Ontario government. 

 

Find out more information about Tax Benefits and Credits by visiting the section in our ToolBox (click here). 

Ask your lawyer for tax receipt and save money!

It is now tax season and Jill has made an appointment with her accountant to finalize her yearly income tax return.  Since Jill needed every penny she received in spousal support to make ends meet, she did not listen to her lawyer’s recommendation to set aside in her savings account 25% of the total income paid by Jack.    She is now extremely stressed and wonders how much money she will need to return to the taxman.  After speaking with her friend Susan, who has gone through a divorce a few years ago, Jill may have found a silver lining that may help her reduce the amount of income tax she owes.  As explained by Susan, all Jill needs to do is ask her lawyer for a tax receipt indicating the total amount of the legal costs she incurred to either:

• establish the amount of support payments (child and/or spousal);

• collect late support payments;

• increase support payments (child and/or spousal);  and/or

 

• defend against a request by the payer (Jack) to reduce established support payments. 

If you are a recipient of child and/or spousal support, you can deduct, in your income tax return, the legal fees incurred to obtain, collect or increase support as well as defend a claim for the reduction of such support.  The legal costs incurred by a recipient to resolve any other issues such as property and parenting cannot be deducted.  Unfortunately, if you are the payer of child and/or spousal support, you cannot claim legal costs incurred to establish, negotiate, or contest the amount of support payments.

 

Your lawyer, if asked, will be responsible to prepare the tax receipt and determine the amount of legal costs you spent in the year to deal with the support issues mentioned above. So if you believe that some of the legal fees you incurred this year qualify as a tax deduction, don’t forget to ask your lawyer for a receipt!

Child Support – Why should I support my wife’s shopping addiction?

Following many discussions, Jack and Jill have finally agreed for Jill to have the children in her primary care (equal to 70% of the time) and Jack, because of his work obligations and difficult schedule, will have them in his care every second weekend including one or two evenings in between (or 30% of the time).  As a result of this arrangement and because he earns a substantially higher income than Jill, Jack’s monthly child support payment will increase.  Jack is concerned about Jill’s love for shopping. While he financially supported it during the marriage, Jack is convinced that a good chunk of the child support he will pay will not be spent on the children. Jack spoke to colleagues at work who used all sorts of strategies to reduce their child support payments. He wonders whether he should have insisted to have the children 50% of the time and whether it was a good idea to accept the long-awaited promotion handed out to him at work, resulting in a higher income… and higher child support payments.

Both of these options are not advisable.  Firstly, a parent should never make parenting decisions based on financial considerations (i.e. with a view of reducing child support).  The court would readily see such a decision for what it is and the parent would lose credibility before the court (or a mediator).  Decision-making authorities assess parenting arrangements based on what is in the best interest of the children, and nothing else.  Rights and obligations regarding children are the same whether you are married or living in a common law relationship.

In the same way, it is a terrible idea for a parent to take steps to quit a well-paying job or to voluntarily reduce his/her annual income to avoid paying child support.  If a court finds that the payer parent has voluntarily reduced his/her income, it may impute an annual income that is greater than the one shown on the income tax return.  The amount of the imputed income will be based on what the court believes the payer parent has the capability to earn.  Following the court decision, that parent will be obligated to pay the higher basic child support amount imputed.  

Many payer parents are concerned with the way basic child support is being used by the recipient parent. While this may be frustrating in some circumstances, the payer parent has no control over the money once it has been paid to the recipient parent. What payers need to understand is that basic child support is not meant to cover strictly expenses that directly benefit the children themselves (such as food and clothing).  It also serves to cover expenses which benefit the children indirectly (although it also has the effect of benefitting the parent as well), such as the mortgage and utilities (for the home in which the children live), the car (which is used to travel them around) and, yes, even the brand new porch…

The payer parent should also keep in mind that in the Federal Child Support Guidelines, basic child support amounts vary for each Canadian provinces and territories and are set based on the amount that an individual parent, with a specific income, is expected to spend to provide for his/her children.   It is simple, the higher the income, the higher the child support amount will be.  Although a payer parent may feel that it would be « cheaper » not to pay child support and to have the children half the time instead, let’s remember that raising children is extremely expensive (many little things, which you may not think about, result in considerable costs when pulled together; haircuts, school lunches and activities, birthday parties, toys, personal care items and, yes, those LuLu Lemon pants…).  In the vast majority of cases, the basic child support amount will not be sufficient to cover that parent’s share of the children’s expenses (both direct and indirect) and the recipient parent will often have to modify his/her current standard of living to support the children financially.

For more helpful information about basic child support and or extraordinary (special) expenses, subscribe to our full library of recorded programs (Study Box) at

www.familylawinabox.com.  (click here to be directed to our Study Box)

Who keeps the family pie?

Jill is hosting a girls’ night out at her house.  She starts talking about her divorce with Jack and explains that she’s entitled to “half of everything”. Her friend Sandy who also went through a divorce 5 years ago tells her that that’s not how it works.  “You divide the value, not the assets”, she says.  A discussion on the subject enfolds and Debra, who has lived in a common law relationship with Dave for 5 years wonders if she would be entitled to claim half of everything as well as a common law spouse. Kathy thinks so, since her cousin got half of her ex’ house after a lengthy court battle, but Carolyn is convinced that this is not the case. And everyone is confused.

 

The rules applicable to the division of family property differ significantly depending on your legal status (married or living in a common law relationship), and also on the province in which you live. In fact, each of the Canadian provinces has its own way of dividing family assets when a separation occurs, whether married of in a common law relationship.

 

For married spouses, there are many general principles that apply in all provinces. The most important one is that all provincial laws share a common goal: to divide equally – or at least fairly – between the two ex-spouses the wealth accumulated by the couple during the marriage.  The basic principle underlying the various provincial family property division schemes is that marriage is a financial partnership and it does not matter who paid for the assets, whether a spouse has contributed more than the other, or who is the actual legal owner of any given asset.  In Ontario, the value of all assets acquired by the spouses (jointly or individually) during the marriage will have to be shared between them. In other provinces, the assets themselves get divided. In some provinces, like British Columbia, the court has the discretion to divide a married couple’s family property the way it feels fair and equitable. In most provinces, however, the judge has no discretion and must abide by very strict rules to which there are many exceptions.

 

For common law spouses, the right to share in the other’s property – and the way property is to be shared – when a separation occurs varies from province to province. For instance, in Manitoba and Nova Scotia, common law spouses are given substantial rights to share in the other’s property after separation.  But in other provinces, like in the province of Quebec, common law spouses have absolutely no right at all to claim a fair share of the property acquired by the other spouse during the relationship.  In Quebec, what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine, so to speak.  In other provinces, such as the province of Ontario, common law spouses are presumed to have no right to share in the other’s property, but if very specific circumstances exist, courts will allow common law spouses to share in some or all of their spouse’s assets upon separation.  It is a myth to believe that you are entitled to half of your ex’s assets if you have lived in a common law relationship for more than three years!  When the parties cannot agree (as is often the case) on how to divide their assets, they will have to bring the matter to court and let a judge decide. This process is, as you know, very costly and (so far as common law spouses are concerned) very unpredictable.

 

Because the laws of each province are so drastically different when it comes to splitting this cherished family pie, it is extremely important to understand the regime that applies to your particular situation, in your particular province. Take the time to inform yourself and obtain proper legal advice BEFORE you move in with someone, get married, make a significant financial contribution or investment in joint assets or in assets belonging to your spouse.  Entering into a well written cohabitation agreement (common law spouses) or a marriage contract (marriage spouses) could avoid many heartaches and headaches.  Why wait until a separation occurs to find out that after all these years of emotional and financial investments, you are not even allowed to eat a piece of the pie…

Life insurance to secure child support: There’s no way I’m leaving you this money!

Since the separation, Jack has never stopped paying the monthly premiums for the life insurance policy that he and Jill bought during their marriage.  As there is no chance of reconciliation, Jack wonders whether he should stop paying for Jill’s portion of the monthly premiums.  After all, why isn’t Jill paying for her own premiums? Jack’s friend Dave also told him that he should immediately remove Jill’s name as the beneficiary of his insurance policy and put the children instead.

 

If Jack was well advised, he would do neither.  When parents separate and there are dependent children to care for, it is very important for both parents to maintain life insurance coverage sufficient to provide for the children should the unthinkable happen.  As long as the children remain dependant financially, both parents have a continued obligation to provide financial support –child support – whether they are paying it or receiving it.

In most cases, when a parent dies, the children move in full-time with the surviving parent who is left with having to financially support the children, without any financial contribution from the other parent, unless proper life insurance coverage is in place.  Even if the deceased parent has made a Will and named the minor children as beneficiaries of part or all of his or her estate, the reality is that it often takes months, if not years, for an estate to be administered and the gifts to be distributed.  Furthermore, the Will may prevent the children to have access to the money until they are 18 years of age or even older.  In the meanwhile, the surviving parent struggles and the children suffer unnecessarily. 

 

Here are some additional reasons why separated parents should maintain life insurance coverage naming the other parent as irrevocable beneficiary in trust for the children AT ALL TIMES:

1. If you die and have made no provisions for the other parent to receive money for the support of your children, the surviving parent may very well sue your Estate to obtain that support.  This is bound to delay the administration of your estate considerably, in addition to forcing your executors to engage significant legal fees to defend the action and settle the issue, leaving less money for the children in the end.

 

2. If your child is a minor at the time of your death, he or she will not be entitled to receive any monies directly (from your Will or your insurance policy).  The monies will have to be administered by the person you named as trustee for your children.   If no one was named, the monies will be administered by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), a governmental institution who will step in to administer your financial affairs and decide what is best for your children.

 

3. Having your ex-spouse as beneficiary in trust of the life insurance proceeds for your children with specific directions as to how the funds may be used by him or her, and what is to be done with any leftover once the children cease to be dependent, will insure that the monies are used properly for the benefit of your children.

 

4. Your children will have immediate access to funds to maintain their standard of living after you are gone.  They will be able to pursue their activities or schooling, and there will be no gap between the time of your death and the time they have access to the fund they need to pursue their daily life.

 

5. Proper life insurance simplifies the lives of everyone involved if one of the parents dies, and the cost to maintain relatively large amounts of temporary life insurance coverage is quite minimal - depending of course on your age and health condition. 

Making sure your children are provided for in the event of your death is a part of being a responsible and loving parent.

Watch What You Write on Your Wall…

Jill is very upset with Jack and vented her frustrations on Facebook.  Her friends “liked” her comments.  Unfortunately, Jill forgot that one of her friends is also friends with Jack’s teenage niece who has her phone glued to her hip and who instantaneously saw the comment Jill made about her uncle.  Of course, she immediately shared it with her mother, Jack’s sister.  Even if Jill wanted to erase her comment, it is too late and Jack has already seen it. 

Social networking services such as Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter have not only become a “marriage killer” – you would be surprise to learn how many people discovered that their spouse was cheating through these means -  they also have the potential of becoming a “best case” killer in court or in a divorce settlement process.  When a separation gets ugly, spouses may be tempted to use social media as a channel to vent their anger, bash their ex-spouse’s actions and get support from common friends and family members in what they believe to be their “just cause”.   

 
If you are using social media to show off your new “hot” girlfriend to your buddies, or to gain support from your friends, rest assured that this evidence is going to find its way into the court room – or in your ex-spouse’s lawyer’s hands–quicker than you can think.  Yes, this type of evidence can be used against you in court and in other settlement processes.  Imagine, with your own actions and your own words you may give your ex-spouse the evidence he or she needs to discredit you and prove his or her point against you.  Your children could find your disparaging comments in future years.    It is hard for parents to argue that they have their children’s best interest at heart – and thus should be granted sole custody of them – when evidence proves that they have spent the past two months destroying the other parents’ reputation in social media.   Even worst, your children can be scared emotionally in the process, especially if your comments are available for the whole world to read. 

Finally, it is not enough to try to limit the damage by shutting down your existing account, locking down your privacy settings or “untagging” your images and pictures.  The damage may be impossible to control down the road as social media tends to leave permanent traces.  Remember that social networking services were created to help people stay in touch. Therefore, if one day you have the urge or the need to vent about your ex or the events related to your separation, just pick up the phone and talk to someone before writing it - permanently - on  your wall.