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 05-04-2016, 04:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 228
PeacefulMoments is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
I'm confused. It's up to her? But there's an order saying it's not up her, that she must seek employment.
I guess it's the unspoken "or else". I presume the "or else" is imputed income. Nobody can actually be forced to work, just to suffer some consequences as a result of not working. Just like you can't physically force a child to eat broccoli, you can just enforce consequences. (or drown it in cheese sauce)
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 04:44 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,924
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Your lawyer was incompetent. She'd be the last person on my list to pay....
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Then it's the court's problem if she isn't seeking work, not yours.

I'm not saying it's a good idea for her to stay home and not be employed, I'm saying that if you want to move to offset CS, which seems reasonable to me, imputing an income to her seems more straightforward than getting caught up in whether she is or is not complying with the order.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:03 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
I guess it's the unspoken "or else". I presume the "or else" is imputed income. Nobody can actually be forced to work, just to suffer some consequences as a result of not working. Just like you can't physically force a child to eat broccoli, you can just enforce consequences. (or drown it in cheese sauce)
cheese sauce is great .. personally I mince garlic....the kids love my veggies. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,973
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Lets back up. What was said when you exchanged taxes? Anything?
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 05:10 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,518
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeacefulMoments View Post
I guess it's the unspoken "or else". I presume the "or else" is imputed income. Nobody can actually be forced to work, just to suffer some consequences as a result of not working. Just like you can't physically force a child to eat broccoli, you can just enforce consequences. (or drown it in cheese sauce)
cheese sauce is great .. personally I mince garlic....the kids love my veggies. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 07:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,345
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

If the only work she finds is in PQ Imhope you have a no relocate clause that's iron clad.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 08:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,229
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beachnana View Post
If the only work she finds is in PQ Imhope you have a no relocate clause that's iron clad.
one thing I have learned..there is no such thing as "iron clad" in family law.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 09:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,041
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

A judge can't order someone to work so I doubt the order specifically says she must obtain employment. Seeking (looking) for employment is very different than obtaining employment. No one can be forced to work, regardless of an order. Mom could get a part time job making under $10k a year and you would still be paying full CS. This is why your focus needs to be on imputing income rather than trying to force her to work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-04-2016, 10:44 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,924
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I would think also that the longer one waits to impute income then the better her argument that absence from the workforce is a factor that should be considered when contemplating imputing income. Wait 2 years? I wouldn't do that. The kid isn't "on the teat." Also I think you could possibly contemplate a few years of stalling tactics to go along with endless case conferences - the Ontario way.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
50/50, child support, pay, shared parenting, welfare


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CS formula when one child is full time and there other is shared JSR40 Financial Issues 11 07-11-2013 01:01 PM
CS for 50/50 shared custody teezy Financial Issues 2 02-21-2013 08:02 PM
Interesting Article on Joint Custody Grace Political Issues 23 03-20-2012 11:35 AM
This whole "shared parenting" thing... sasha1 Political Issues 42 05-02-2006 07:44 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 PM.