Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2016, 12:08 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks Tayken, That's some solid practical advice. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2016, 12:37 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YGTBFJ View Post
Thanks Tayken, That's some solid practical advice. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
The other thing I forgot to mention is the risk side of going to court.

Say you send 50,000 and fail and are ordered to pay the other party's costs at 25,000 or even 50,000. You are out 125,000 or 200,000 to try and save 40,000. The risk isn't worth taking in most matters... Especially just to be "right".

Often family law reflects the complexity of mathcore heavy metal song where you really are dealing with impossibility of calculating infinity with a high probability of getting 43% burnt with what you do. Family law is often a sugar coated sour experience.

Last edited by Tayken; 11-04-2016 at 12:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2016, 03:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,678
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Your analysis makes the math work, but I find it a bit of a jump to say that each parent is responsible for 2 x table values. As it is, table values for 2 children are almost 20% gross. I haven't dug into the metrics that were used in the generation of those tables, since that is probably a battle beyond what I'm ready to fight. The rates seem very high and not at all representative of what we portioned as a family unit, but again, not ready for that fight.
This is because there are higher costs to duplication - and the children "get paid" before the parents. It is designed to ensure transfer of wealth from the higher earning household to the lesser earning household.

A different argument is: "That is generally how it is done at court, attempting to fight it will probably result in losing and thus the other side will not agree".

Tayken's advice given above and earlier in the thread is excellent and, as always, should be considered before charging forwards.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 11-05-2016, 12:41 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi orleasnlawyer, this thread is about understanding the law and rationalizing it against a logical approach to fundamental principles and the vast chasm in between. Your position championing 2x table values is not represented in either camp. If that is what you are telling your clients then I'm gobsmacked to another level. I supposed this could also just be a sleazy tactic to bully your opponents and create confusion on what should be painfully obvious discussion. Just to note, I did give a public shout out to tayken. I appreciate his practical advice.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 11-05-2016, 08:07 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,847
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

We are fortunate that OrleansLawyer contributes to this forum.

OrleansLawyer is neither "sleazy" nor a "bully."

Inflammatory remarks about another poster are totally inappropriate and uncalled for.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 11-05-2016, 08:45 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

My rebuttal was about the content, not the person. I'm sure there is no one posting here that has anything to gain from protecting the status quo.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2016, 10:35 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

The sooner you can stop obsessing over the details (math) of the situation and just accept the realities of the situation the sooner you can move on with your life OP.

You are not going to change the systemic issues within family law.

Penny wise pound foolish. -- Don't fall into this trap.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2016, 11:11 AM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,298
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
This is your mistake.

Parent A has a responsibility of $935 - and so contributes $935 in their own household, and $935 to Parent B's household.

Parent B has a responsibility of $479 - and so contributes $479 to their own household, and $479 to Parent A's household.
Generally, if I say something and Orleans disagrees, then I am wrong. In this case though, Orleans is incorrect. The table values represent the money that a non-custodial parent would spend if they did not spend a single penny on the child. Officially, non-custodial parents do not spend money on their child. The table values represent the entire contribution (excluding S7 of course) of a NCP to their child. It does not represent half the amount that they spend, where half goes to CP and the other half stays with NCP.

This is kinda scary, because Orleans is a smart guy, and for him to have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the tables makes me aware that there is no way judges will ever overturn offset.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2016, 03:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,678
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
If that is what you are telling your clients
DISCLAIMER:
Everything said in this, and any other, message is not intended to be taken as legal advice. I do not hold myself out to be a lawyer, adult or literate. Any resemblance this or any other message may have to legal advice or common sense is entirely coincidental. This message was generated through the combination of a monkey hitting a keyboard with a rock and advanced spell check software.

Quote:
this thread is about understanding the law and rationalizing it against a logical approach to fundamental principles
Here is practical advice then:
If you go to court, the offset table amounts are probably what will come out. If the payor's income is significantly higher then there is a stronger argument that the recipient should receive greater than offset (ie, closer to full guideline support) than to reduce the payor's burden.

Why? Because fairness to the parents is of lesser import than the financial security of the children. Better the payor parent is disgruntled than the children have a (more) significant change in standard of living between households.

If the recipient has re-partnered to someone wealthy than the payor can use the same argument to justify less than offset support.

Why does the result at court matter if the math is "wrong"? Because all negotiations must consider what will happen if they break down. If you offer me $500 and I want $800, and I know that I will get $800 at court, I do not have any incentive to accept your $500.

Quote:
In this case though, Orleans is incorrect.
On re-reading my previous post, and reading yours, I must agree that my logic was flawed.

The reasoning I used is what gets thrown into the SSAG for the custodial payor formula.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2016, 06:08 PM
YGTBFJ's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Orléans
Posts: 25
YGTBFJ is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you OrleansLawyer. I appreciate your levity and honesty. I apologise for letting my frustration get the better me.

Thank you everyone for your contributions.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
divorcemate, lawyermath


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.