Retroactive Child Support for 10 Years

[HammerDad]

Billiechic is right to some extent.

The onus is on the Payor to advise the payee that they have had an increase in income and the payor is to increase the amount in accordance with the guidelines. There was a case in this regards which set the precedent a few years back in Alberta that went all the way to the Supreme Court, which outlines this requirement (google - Alberta 4 Dads Child Support).

While you may be able to provide proof that you advised your ex that you wished to re-open access and child support, it may only help in mitigating the amount of arrears you owe. She does have an obligation when you don't come forward with financial information to request it herself, but that obligation isn't as significant as your obligation to tell her of the increase. She will have to argue that going back 10 years isn't a wealth transfer, and that the child have suffered by your neglecting to increase your support each year in accordance with the guidelines to get all the arrears she is requesting. You will argue that you provided her with requests to re-open the access and support portions and received no reply and that going back 10 years will create undue hardship on you now and thus is unreasonable.

Each year you should be sending your ex an email stating "I made X amount last year. In accordance with the guidelines, that means I pay Y the year going forward."


Edit - with regard to the post-secondary education, you probably do have a good argument that she should contribute, as the guidelines provide that each parent shall pay an amount equal to their proportion of the parents combined income for extra-ordinary expenses. So if you make lets say $50k and she makes $60k, she should be obligated to pay 54.5% of all extra-ordinary expenses, AFTER taking into consideration any tax rebates that she receives (child activity credit etc.)

Also you mention this:

She was able to send them to a private school with her families financial resources

It isn't her families responsibility to be providing for your kids. I am on your side that if you can't afford private school it would be unreasonable to put them in it instead of public school. But don't confuse her family with your responsibilities.

[billiechic]

No, I'm not a lawyer, but your lawyer is biased toward you and I am not. You DO hold some responsibility. Note that I did not say it was all your fault. Until you admit (even to yourself) that you did not increase your payments as the law requires, you will be stuck in litigation. The key to getting out is to accept your mistakes and try to find a way for you both to accept some losses.

According to the facts, you will owe arrears. I just don't think it will be anywhere near the 10 years of arrears.

[billiechic]

Originally Posted by caringdad

It is not as open and shut as you state. I did not deprive my children of anything.

FWIW, nobody said anything about you doing this. Those are probably your ex's arguments, not mine. I just said you had a duty to increase CS as your income increased.

[caringdad]

I am good with the arrears. I am ok with the increase in support. I am just not ok with the process it has taken to get here. Thanks for your comments. I am not fighting against an increase, just about 10 years of retroactive support. I think 3 is reasonable. Litigating for more is a lose-lose proposition. It will cost the same in legal fess as what she will gain for wanting 10 years vs. 3.

Lets not forget the access issues here as well. She is just tacking them on since she is already in litigation for child support. All these years she avoided negotiating in good faith and refused mediation and discussion with lawyers. Now on top of the support issues, she wants to take away significant access times with the children, as well as decision making abilities I have. Without going into details, she wants sole custody. That is what she wanted 10 years ago too. Now she is trying to tie it into the litigation for support. It just strikes me as being vengeful. I see the whole thing as trying to scare me into not putting up a defense. I am going to borrow to defend myself. I ran out of money 10 years ago. Now I am willing to lose my house to stand on principle.

My lawyer is biased towards me of course, but he has told me when I am out of line before. He is very moderate and liberal. He is familiar with my wife's attempts with Parental Alienation Syndrome, and about her zealous protectiveness towards the children. I am not going to give in this time as I did 10 years ago.