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 09-19-2012, 05:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 420
Canadaguy is on a distinguished road
Default

From my understanding your schedule is over the 40% threshold, so you should be paying offset CS. If you ex doesn't work, there should be a reason for that. If not, your CS should be reduced to her welfare cheque minus your salary.

Might be worth investigating with a different lawyer to see if you can have it adjusted.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2012, 09:19 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,318
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You may personally object but, that is how Offset works. It isn't about the parents. Child support is the right of the child.
However, it is not always in the child's best interests.

Offset is always in the best interests of the parental recipient of child support though, and that is the one person who always matters.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2012, 09:24 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,318
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadaguy View Post
From my understanding your schedule is over the 40% threshold, so you should be paying offset CS. If you ex doesn't work, there should be a reason for that. If not, your CS should be reduced to her welfare cheque minus your salary.

Might be worth investigating with a different lawyer to see if you can have it adjusted.
Offset is the starting point, but there are two other factors (that are supposed to have equal weighting)

b) Increased costs of shared support

The courts have interpreted this as meaning that the payor should pay more, but I think the proper interpretation is that the increased costs mean that the standard of living of both parents should be much lower, and that should be reflected in support payments.

c) Particular situation of the case (not the actual legal wording of the clause)

This can be anything. Literally anything.


.... we need a good supreme court case where two parents are seeking an initial support order that is based on shared custody, not one that is moving from full table to shared. The contino case was terrible as precedent.

The point is, be careful about "should be", shared custody payments are all over the map.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2012, 10:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 283
nogoingback is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You may personally object but, that is how Offset works. It isn't about the parents. Child support is the right of the child.
Child support is the right of the child, but I have to agree with sahibjee:
"that sounds so wrong. lets say one parent is making 90k, the other one is bumming around at home making nothing but ontario works. the one making 90k takes the children 40% of the time and still pays full table support according to the formula above = wrong on all accounts"
This is very close to my situation and the formula and/or child support rules offer very little incentive for the non-working spouse to become employed. This has an enormous impact on the long-term financial stability of a child, not to mention the parents, which in a way is the child's right as well.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2012, 10:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 283
nogoingback is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad2bandm View Post
Interesting thread...
I wanted 50/50, but settled, on advice of lawyer, which I regret. To parrot others on here, I wish I had found these forums long before all that.

I get my daughter every Tuesday, alternate Thursdays, and every other weekend right until the Monday morning.

I pay full table amount though. Should I?
My order was done in 2009, and my lawyer also explained to me, I had to pay table amount, no questions about it.

Maybe in my case, it's because I work full-time, while Mom has never worked, and never will.
Good luck "Dadthatshadenough". :-)
I have been asking the same question lately. I think it will be a tough sell unless Mom get's an income. Apparently there is variation in how judges calculate "40%". Mess's response to my question may be of assistance:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...payment-13074/

There are other similar threads under Financial Issues
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-20-2012, 03:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 508
sahibjee is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcdreamy View Post
Flip it. One parent makes minimum wage, works like a dog with overtime/2nd job 50 hours/week and makes $28 annually has the children 60%. Higher earner parent (better degree in 20's), does commission sales, puts in 35 hours/week and makes $90 annually.
in this case the hours should also be flipped, the person who is working less should also take more care of the children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You may personally object but, that is how Offset works. It isn't about the parents. Child support is the right of the child.
Agreed that the child support is the right of the child, not even objectionable, however please see another scenario i am posting below

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
However, it is not always in the child's best interests.

Offset is always in the best interests of the parental recipient of child support though, and that is the one person who always matters.
Agreed!

now look at the offset this way.

Facts
Mom makes minimum wage.
Dad is the 90k earner.
3 kids, 10 years marriage

circumstances
lets say mom gets final sole custody, and 60% of parenting time. dad gets 40% time and then offset starts according to the "conventional" "offset method.

she then decides to flip the parenting time and makes it 60% for dad and 40% for herself. the offset is already in place and calculated. dad is now responsible for the kids for the "majority" of the time, while mom is not.

Dad goes back to get the offset CS adjusted .... but hey .. its already adjusted! motion failes dad pays few grands in costs plus humiliation.

Calculations:
tax free
CS on 90k = $1687
CS on 18K = $317
CS paid by dad = $1370 (tax free to her, taxable to dad)

taxable to mom
SS paid by dad = $787 (mid range)
Plus her own minimum wage money. = $1500
Total annual taxable income of mom = $27,444
After taxes =$23,980 (/12) = $1998.33/m
Total cash in moms hands per month, 1998.33+1370 = $3368.33
Total yearly income = $40419.96

please note Mom netting from dad = $2157/m

Taxable to dad.
Income - SS = (90,000 - $9444) = $80556
After Tax income = $61,493
CS Paid to mom = ($1370 x 12) $16,440
Total monthly in dad's hands after CS paid to mom = $3754.41
Total yearly after CS paid to mom = ($61,493 - $16,440) = $45053


Difference in actual hard worked earnings = (90000-18000) = $72000
Difference in actual cash in hand at the end of year = ($45053- $40419.96) = $4633.04 = (10.3%)

so if you consider that 10% difference you also must consider that dad has to take care of the children an extra 20% of the time. which actually puts dad 10% under moms income!

Very Important: this calculation is without S7, which would further royally royally screw daddy because of the income differences and mom having sole custody and being able to make decisions without dad's consent!

Mom has more money now to spend on funny things, plus go out on dates etc, while she strategically placed dad in between work and kids, nailed him on the money and .... i leave it to your imagination.

Last edited by sahibjee; 09-20-2012 at 03:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-21-2012, 04:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 508
sahibjee is on a distinguished road
Default

btw folks, are three nights a week considered 40% by the judges? I currently got 2 nights, i'd go fight for another night soon.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2012, 04:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 283
nogoingback is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sahibjee View Post
btw folks, are three nights a week considered 40% by the judges? I currently got 2 nights, i'd go fight for another night soon.
Yes, 3 out of 7 would be 42.8% and that would be a starting point.The percentage may vary depending on the whole picture, such as the structure of how you share holidays.
You have to be careful not to pursue more sleepovers as a means to reduce child support. Don't even mention the $. You have to build a case based on why it is in the children's best interest.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-22-2012, 01:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sahibjee View Post
Facts
Mom makes minimum wage.
Dad is the 90k earner.
3 kids, 10 years marriage

circumstances
lets say mom gets final sole custody, and 60% of parenting time. dad gets 40% time and then offset starts according to the "conventional" "offset method.
Why are we saying mom gets final sole custody? This has nothing to do with level of access or with child support. What it does is leave a subtle connotation that mom is on top. How is that pertinent?

Quote:
she then decides to flip the parenting time and makes it 60% for dad and 40% for herself. the offset is already in place and calculated. dad is now responsible for the kids for the "majority" of the time, while mom is not.
Is this why you want to give mom sole custody? So that she is the gatekeeper and has the power to do what she wants? Because it doesn't work that way. She can't arbitrarily change the schedule willy nilly just because she feels like it. Sole custody or not.

Let's say dad has sole custody? Could he change the schedule willy nilly according to how he feels that morning? I guess he wouldn't actually, because your scenario seems to depend on dad being a powerless doormat.

Quote:
Dad goes back to get the offset CS adjusted .... but hey .. its already adjusted! motion failes dad pays few grands in costs plus humiliation.
This is absurd and completely irrelevant to the the discussion. You are presuming that a) Dad is completely uninformed, and b) has no independant legal advice. He has just decided to go to court, knowing that 60/40 is equivalent either way BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THIS TO GET THE SETOFF IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Sheesh, do you manipulate in real life the way you do in internet posts? How about we say that dad has half a brain and talked to a lawyer at some point during his divorce, knew better, and wasn't humiliated. Does this somehow change the point of your mathematics?

Quote:
Calculations:
tax free
CS on 90k = $1687
CS on 18K = $317
CS paid by dad = $1370 (tax free to her, taxable to dad)

taxable to mom
SS paid by dad = $787 (mid range)
I thought this was about child support setoff? So yes, in this case, with this income disparity, there will likely be spousal support as well. Which have an effect on the final ratio, which means the final ratio is not due to the child support setoff, it is due to the spousal support. Meanwhile, why do you assume the mid-rage? That puts the final numbers outside of the spousal support guidelines with children which target the receiving spouse's income as coming out to 40% of the total.

Funny that you didn't mention that was going to happen in your introduction, but sole custody to mom was somehow relevant.
Quote:
Plus her own minimum wage money. = $1500
And why is mom earning minimum wage? Because she has no education, no skills, and no recent job experience?

Quote:
Total annual taxable income of mom = $27,444
After taxes =$23,980 (/12) = $1998.33/m
Total cash in moms hands per month, 1998.33+1370 = $3368.33
Total yearly income = $40419.96
please note Mom netting from dad = $2157/m

Taxable to dad.
Income - SS = (90,000 - $9444) = $80556
After Tax income = $61,493
CS Paid to mom = ($1370 x 12) $16,440
Total monthly in dad's hands after CS paid to mom = $3754.41
Total yearly after CS paid to mom = ($61,493 - $16,440) = $45053

Difference in actual hard worked earnings = (90000-18000) = $72000
Difference in actual cash in hand at the end of year = ($45053- $40419.96) = $4633.04 = (10.3%)

so if you consider that 10% difference you also must consider that dad has to take care of the children an extra 20% of the time. which actually puts dad 10% under moms income!
No. Both parents have equivalent houseing costs regardless of 60 or 40%, everyone gets a bedroom. Both households will be buying the children half their clothes, transporting them back and forth, paying for phone, internet, cable, etc. Basic sports and recreation should be shared equally out of child support. No one is getting screwed here and there is not an extra expense for dad equal to 10% of his income. He is paying for 3 or so days more groceries. Probably a little extra hydro for the few extra days as well, but unless the kids are running hair dryers 24/7 while they are in his house, the difference will be about $10.

Quote:
Very Important:
Actually, no, it's not even true..
Quote:
this calculation is without S7, which would further royally royally screw daddy because of the income differences and mom having sole custody and being able to make decisions without dad's consent!
Section 7 would be calculated on total income after taxes including support payments, CCTB, etc.

Quote:
Mom has more money now to spend on funny things, plus go out on dates etc, while she strategically placed dad in between work and kids, nailed him on the money and .... i leave it to your imagination.
No, even with your numbers the households have equal finacial resourses which reflects the intent of both the setoff amounts and spousal support. But your numbers are wrong because they don't reflect the tax deductions that dad gets for all the sec 7 you say he is paying, or the eligable dependant, or the sports deduction, etc. Which come in at a higher tax rate than mom.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 09-24-2012, 01:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 508
sahibjee is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Why are we saying mom gets final sole custody? This has nothing to do with level of access or with child support. What it does is leave a subtle connotation that mom is on top. How is that pertinent?
I am simply taking the most common scenario here. most often than not moms get custody. I never said it had anything to do with child support.

Quote:
Is this why you want to give mom sole custody? So that she is the gatekeeper and has the power to do what she wants? Because it doesn't work that way. She can't arbitrarily change the schedule willy nilly just because she feels like it. Sole custody or not.
In theory you are right, but in practice its exactly how i wrote, moms get to change however they like, and judges endorse it unlessthey somehow strongly feel that its against the best interests of the child, father is actually the last creature that matters.

Quote:
Let's say dad has sole custody? Could he change the schedule willy nilly according to how he feels that morning? I guess he wouldn't actually, because your scenario seems to depend on dad being a powerless doormat.
I wish the reality was different and dads had some say.
Quote:
This is absurd and completely irrelevant to the the discussion. You are presuming that a) Dad is completely uninformed, and b) has no independant legal advice. He has just decided to go to court, knowing that 60/40 is equivalent either way BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THIS TO GET THE SETOFF IN THE FIRST PLACE.
may be he was self rep because he had to pay SS and couldn't afford getting a lawyer, with the difference in incomes reflected in the calculations I am sure no one can begin to expect that he could have possibly gone to a lawyer.

Quote:
Sheesh, do you manipulate in real life the way you do in internet posts? How about we say that dad has half a brain and talked to a lawyer at some point during his divorce, knew better, and wasn't humiliated. Does this somehow change the point of your mathematics?

I thought this was about child support setoff? So yes, in this case, with this income disparity, there will likely be spousal support as well. Which have an effect on the final ratio, which means the final ratio is not due to the child support setoff, it is due to the spousal support. Meanwhile, why do you assume the mid-rage? That puts the final numbers outside of the spousal support guidelines with children which target the receiving spouse's income as coming out to 40% of the total.
I'd leave the sarcasm alone and get to the point. the calculations are taken from mysupportcalculator.ca and thats where the midpoint came from, in a picture like this you cannot simply take one amount and ignore the other, that would be an actual attempt at manipulation. I have chosen the midpoint so to avoid criticism from either side, though i have seem judges take the high end of the range more often than not in cases where the marriage has been 10 years or longer.

Quote:
And why is mom earning minimum wage? Because she has no education, no skills, and no recent job experience?
ask my ex, Master's degree, Diploma in Early Childhood Education plus Teaching experience, didnt get a job for first eight months, then the judge threatened to impute "some" income to her so she went and got a minimum wage job and even that on a contract; even a judge with half a brain should have been able to see right through it, next court date the judge did not impute her anything higher than her current salary. it works for them in the courts, thats why they do it. once again, in theory you are right, she should get an appropriate job, in reality she is better of not getting one.

another example could be of some one who has lived on a farm as a home maker. in those circumstances i think the incomes would be understandable.

Quote:
No. Both parents have equivalent houseing costs regardless of 60 or 40%, everyone gets a bedroom. Both households will be buying the children half their clothes, transporting them back and forth, paying for phone, internet, cable, etc. Basic sports and recreation should be shared equally out of child support. No one is getting screwed here and there is not an extra expense for dad equal to 10% of his income. He is paying for 3 or so days more groceries. Probably a little extra hydro for the few extra days as well, but unless the kids are running hair dryers 24/7 while they are in his house, the difference will be about $10.
so you are saying costs of 219 days (60%) = cost of 146 days? (40%) thats is a difference of 2.3 months, sorry your claim is unsubstantiated

Also unless the mom moves away from where the children usual residence is the courts do make the non custodial parent drive for pickups and drop offs, I am a living example of this.
Quote:
Actually, no, it's not even true.. Section 7 would be calculated on total income after taxes including support payments, CCTB, etc.

No, even with your numbers the households have equal finacial resourses which reflects the intent of both the setoff amounts and spousal support. But your numbers are wrong because they don't reflect the tax deductions that dad gets for all the sec 7 you say he is paying, or the eligable dependant, or the sports deduction, etc. Which come in at a higher tax rate than mom.
sorry i thought i was abundantly clear on the calculations not including the S7 expenses, therefore the tax deductions for S7 would be simply manipulating the numbers without just cause.

simply put since S7 are not calculated in above figures, the related taxes are not either. I simply pointed out that S7 will further damage finances for dad more than it would to mom given the income gap.

perhaps some one else can explain it better.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Concentrating at work tugofwar General Chat 13 05-14-2010 04:44 PM
I'm looking for case law on shared custody Simcoe Divorce & Family Law 11 10-21-2009 02:10 PM
sick kids & time off work... mcr Parenting Issues 1 12-15-2008 02:48 PM
Ex Spouse Refuses to Work maurice Financial Issues 7 09-03-2008 10:20 AM
Kicked out - no money, no work permit, no help phaidros52 Financial Issues 8 12-07-2005 07:09 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 AM.