Here we have a common occurrence in the family court system here in Canada. The judiciary are all too willing to forget about men in attempt to appease their feminist rulers.
The question we should be asking ourselves is " if a man doesn't have the money to pay then what makes the judge think the child would have had the lifestyle if the relationship was intact?"
The answer is simple.
If the relationship was intact the amount of money generated by the primary breadwinner would be what it is. There would be no demands for more as the reality would be that's all the money we as a family unit have.
The family court judiciary needs to wake up and stop this bullshit from happening.
I believe the term would be COMMON SENSE, something today's judiciary and society at large seems to have lost.