Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2017, 03:20 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9
Lolita123 is on a distinguished road
Default CCB in relation to CS

So, as much as the CS guidelines do not take into consideration the amount of CCB that a person receives, I truly believe that it should. After all, the purpose of child support is not to ensure that the children have the same 'standard of living' whether their parents are separated or not? and with that in mind, if a family is separated and their combine income is $131,000 should they not technically be 'expected' to spend the same amount as a family who earns the same income but are still together? I crunched some numbers for Ontario and I was blown away...

Lets assume that the table for child support is a starting point to determine the amount that should be spent for a child. Income of $131,000.00 would give you an amount of $1,792 a month or $21,504 a year for 2 children.

Scenario 1:
- Family still together and $131,000 GROSS income
- CCB and provincial child benefit : about $3000 a year ($250/month)
- Amount to raise 2 children: $21,504
- Amount 'out of pocket' from parents: $21,504- $3000 = $18,504/ a year or $1542 a month

Scenario 2:
- Family separated total family income $131,000 (custodial parent: $36,000 non-custodial parent: $95,000)
- CCB and Provincial child benefit for custodial parent: about $12,000
a year ($1000/month)
- Amount to raise 2 children: $21,504
- Amount 'out of pocket' from parents: $21,504- $12,000 = $9,504 a year or $792 a month

***as per the federal guidelines, scenario 2 a non-custodial parent would be ordered to pay $1292 a month in child support OR $15,504 a year***

How is this fair? the family who is separated in the end, the custodial parent has $27,504 a year to spend on the children when a family of that same income but living together is expected to spend $21,504.. that is a $6000 difference and that is all after tax money.. and who is paying that $6000 difference.. the non-custodial parent.

Furthermore, the way the guidelines are made, if the non-custodial parent has the children 38% of the time doesn't make a difference, that parent will still pay the full amount like someone who sees their children 0% if the time!

Wouldn't it be fair that every family that has a income of $131,000 separated or not be expected to spend the same amount on their children... child support is for the children.. and child benefits are also for the children... so that $6000 extra paid by the non-custodial parent to me is pretty much 'spousal support'... I would go even further to say that both parent's income should be taken into consideration so if the non-custodial parent is making $95,000 and the custodial parent is making $36,000 well out of what is the out of pocket for the parent, the non-custodial should pay $72.5% and the custodial parent the remaining. After all don't they say that each parent needs to contribute for the children? To me having a low income and huge government benefits doesn't count for the actual contribution of the parent

What do you guys think? curious to see your view?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2017, 09:54 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 110
Tandem80 is on a distinguished road
Default

Well I did find out today that the CCB can and probably will be grossed up and added to the income of the recipient parent in my case to determine the proportionate share for Section 7 expenses. Which is great considering she is getting nearly $1500 a month. Grossed up is almost $30,000 per year.

Don't know if I did this link right but here is case law from canlii which also included CCB to income...
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...resultIndex=21
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2017, 11:23 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 72
Aghast is on a distinguished road
Default

I wish this was posted earlier. Damn I could have used this. I will be putting this one away for Trial.

Do the CS guidelines specifically say that CCB is not to be used in the calculation of income?

Tandem's link is great, not just for S7 but for child support and spousal support. Paragraph 6 states: "The Guidelines themselves expressly permit the Court to impute income to a party where a significant portion of their income is derived from sources that are exempt from tax" S.19(1)(h)

I can't remember how to make a link but if you copy and paste...

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/do...?resultIndex=1

At paragraph 28. "The word “means” includes all financial resources, capital assets, income from employment or earning capacity and any other source from which benefits are received [Strang v. Strang, [1992] S.C.R. 112]. "

So CCB should be taken into consideration as a financial resource when considering spousal support as well


lol it makes a link itself
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2017, 11:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 110
Tandem80 is on a distinguished road
Default

Maybe we should thank the new Government for rolling UCCB into CCTB?

My ex is getting more help tax free may as well impute income to her since she claims she has none!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2017, 10:40 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9
Lolita123 is on a distinguished road
Default

That is great that it will be added to Section 7 but section 7 doesn't change the monthly child support... so to me not only does it need to be taken into consideration for that but ALSO for the monthly child support... because that IS money for the children since once a child is 18 that money is no longer being paid to the custodial parent... even if they make $0 income... so not to take it into consideration and saying that it doesn't count for the children is truly an issue... I am from QC so, even if we don't take it into consideration, the fact that at least we recognize the custodial parent has having to pay for the child also and the fact that anything about 20% custody is considered to off-set the amount of child support makes a HUGE difference. Here is an example of the calculation in québec for a 20/80 custody arrangement. the amount determine by the quebec table in regards to how much is required to raise 2 children on a family income of $131,000 is $15,680:

Annual income
non-custodial: $95,000.00
Custodial: $36,000.00

Deduction
non-custodial: $10,985.18
Custodial: $10,985.18

Available income
non-custodial: $84,014.82
Custodial: $25,014.82
Total for Both: $109,029.64

Repartition
non-custodial: 77.06%
Custodial: 22.94%

Basic contribution
non-custodial: $12,083.01
Custodial: $3,596.99
Total for Both: $15,680.00

Custody time:
non-custodial: 20%
Custodial: 80%

Basic contribution
non-custodial: $12,083.01
Custodial: 3,596.99

Cost of the custody
non-custodial: $3,136.00
Custodial: $12,544.00

annual support
non-custodial: $8,947.01

Monthly support
non-custodial: $745.58



Compared to Ontario which is $1298 a month since it does not consider the custodial parent's income, or the custody time under 40%... Just that would make a huge difference... and QC has much more taxes and trust me kids here are not missing anything because of that 'lower' child support amount...

QC as many things that are 'wrong' but that part I have to say they did it better!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-27-2017, 09:53 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

I think you are starting from a false assumption. CS doesn't scale perfectly by income.

Let me show with Ontario numbers, for two kids.

Someone earning $130k has a table CS amount of $1781. Say that's an intact household and the other parent earns zero. So $1781 a month is considered to be needed for raising the children.

Now say the intact household income is still $130k, but it's from both parents earning $65k each. That's two table amounts of $966 for a total of $1932 considered to be needed for raising the children.

So suddenly the cost of raising the children has increased by $151 just because both parents earn money? Why would that be? The whole system is not perfect; frankly, I think it's about trying to find a balance between accuracy, and getting bogged down with even more math, like trying to account for CCTB.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-28-2017, 08:05 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 9
Lolita123 is on a distinguished road
Default

Rioe: That is exactly my point... they should have a table that determine what is spent on kids when the total income for a family is $131,000... from that point on, it would not matter if 1 makes the whole $131,000 versus split between to individuals... since, both types are truly making the same Gross income together. To me it just makes sense... and it is important to account for CCB (CCTB no longer exists) since that IS money for the children... I mean if tomorrow the custodial parent looses custody of the child, they won't receive the CCB anymore no matter how much their income is... so that right there shows that it's money to be used towards expenses of the child... clothing, food, housing, activities etc... They want both parents to participate in their kids life - which is a no brainer - but one pays way too much in the scenario presented above... and that should not be... there are ways to make this more fair... It will still not be perfect... and there may be exceptional cases but in general, it would be much easier... especially if they would set out a rule that someone who has their kids every other weekend and 1/2 summer for example (which many have if they don't do 50/50) then things would instantly be a bit better... it would be a step in the right direction for sure
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 54
Newfie76 has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Exclamation

Does anyone know of any current initiatives to lobby the government to make changes? Canadian public needs to start putting pressure on this subject if we want true fairness!! If two prostitutes can get a motion up to the PMO for legalizing prostitution, why can't a couple of people get this family law put forward?

**Love the judges comment (under tamdem80's link), where he states if custodian were to pay SS, the SS paid would directly work against the children's best interest. However, he goes ahead anyway and grants SS, with knowing the ex has a new spouse of similar income and can not hold/get a min wage job. Family Law needs to be burnt and rebuilt from scratch!!! I'd be thrown out of court if he did that to me....with pleasure.

** Of note: In Ontario the provincial government has decided to NOT include CCB as income for those on welfare, unlike the previous UCCB. Thus a welfare recipient getting full benefits is also getting those benefits as if the CCB did not exist. As well as the CCB being calculated with 0 income. It pays to be on welfare with kids!! So I would be surprised if "privatized welfare" would ever be calculated with CCB as income.....To bad we never stayed with the old government.

Anyone know if a full CCB payment comes with a monthly subscription to Rolling Stone?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 110
Tandem80 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newfie76 View Post

** Of note: In Ontario the provincial government has decided to NOT include CCB as income for those on welfare, unlike the previous UCCB. Thus a welfare recipient getting full benefits is also getting those benefits as if the CCB did not exist. As well as the CCB being calculated with 0 income. It pays to be on welfare with kids!! So I would be surprised if "privatized welfare" would ever be calculated with CCB as income.....To bad we never stayed with the old government.

Anyone know if a full CCB payment comes with a monthly subscription to Rolling Stone?
Well that just burst my bubble!

I can only cross my fingers that in my case it will be found as income as my exs only income other than disability is all derived from settlement trusts and CCB which she takes home more than I and my income is pretty significant. Must be nice to have the world handed to you on a silver platter and enjoy the fruits of my labour....and get to see our children everyday!!!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-02-2017, 02:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 72
Aghast is on a distinguished road
Default

Anything drawn from the settlement trust should be counted as income.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ccb, child support, non-custodial


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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sample Separation Agreement NBDad Financial Issues 48 10-23-2013 09:20 PM
Name Change & Hyphenation singlemom1kid Divorce & Family Law 42 07-19-2013 09:13 AM
Costs in relation to Bad Faith Wiser2008 Financial Issues 0 12-16-2010 12:53 PM
What does this mean in relation to my divorce settlement? wee3here Divorce & Family Law 1 07-07-2009 12:52 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 AM.