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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 01:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,049
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

It also benefits the child by having a roof over their head.

Why should the mother have to put her CS in a trust and use her own money to support the child all the time? That $1400 gets split up to go to whatever bills, Mom then has her $1400 to spend on what she wishes. What the OP is suggesting is that his CS should not be used for the children, it should go in trust and that Mom should therefore spend more of her money on the child.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 01:14 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 8
strange_brew is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
-He isn't suggesting not paying - he suggested a trust.

Speaking about paying a mortgage - that ultimately benefits the custodial parent doesn't it?
Exactly.

Also, remember, this is not a custodial arrangement. This is fully shared custody 50/50. And Extraordinary expenses are already split 60/40. That only leaves the day to day. My argument is that for someone making $260k, the cost of monthly expenses is such a low percentage of income that its essentially irrelevant. I know because I have the kids 50% of the time.

That leaves standard of living. We live in the same neighbourhood and she lives in a nicer house, drives a nicer car and goes on exotic vacations with the kids once or twice a year. I don't mind paying but it should be about equalizing the experience of the kids and the cost burden on each of us.

At my income level I would agree that I should subsidize somewhat, but not $1500 per month. It just doesn't make logical sense.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 01:25 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,248
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Based on rough calculations, even with $1470 CS paid, you are still bringing in close to $8k a month more than she is. The only reason you don't have a nicer house and car than she does must therefore be different financial prioritizing.

Don't think of it as her living in a nicer house. Think of it as your children living in a nicer house half the time. Just because the cheque itself goes into a savings account doesn't mean that she isn't spending her own CS amount plus $1470 on expenses related to the children every month.

All that said, I do agree that pure offset is not the best system, and it shows up vividly in a high income situation such as yours.

Try arguing that the half-offset method should be used. Think of it as both parents putting their CS amounts, proportional to income, in a pool that supports the children, and drawing from it proportional to their access. For you, that would be 50-50, or you paying her $735 a month, which might feel fairer to you.

As noted, someone like you with the resources to take this to court and set a precedent for the half-offset system could be a great help to others in the future. You know, the people who don't even make $8k a month.

Oh, and POF is Plenty of Fish, an online dating website.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 01:37 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 8
strange_brew is on a distinguished road
Default

A bit more context. Until very recently (last 18 months) our incomes were very close. In fact, they have been within $20-30k of each other for the past 7 years or so and our careers have both blossomed significantly in the past ~3 years (I actually worked from home for a long period of time to allow her to pursue her career).

I had a really good year last year so my CS more than doubled, but the circumstances could reverse in the future. So this is not about me trying to be selfish and save myself some money. I just don't think $1500 makes sense, and I would feel the same way if the roles were reversed.

Is there some precedent for half-offset? I think that makes a lot of sense and $735 a month feels much more in line with reality.

I had actually come up with a formula that, for every $25k of difference in our income, we pay the other $100 per month. That also passed the "sniff test" for me and would account for dramatically higher incomes in the future (unlikely but who knows).
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 02:11 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,146
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

I think people don't understand that ex spouses don't want money "earmarked" as "CHILD SUPPORT" to in ANY WAY benefit the ex spouse. Once we get that on lock down a lot of people will be very happy.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,242
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
I think people don't understand that ex spouses don't want money "earmarked" as "CHILD SUPPORT" to in ANY WAY benefit the ex spouse. Once we get that on lock down a lot of people will be very happy.
So what are people suppose to do. Separate foods for kids and CP? How do you separate heat, hydro, water and etc?

I get the train of thought, I just don't get how that could be done in a reasonable way that makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 03:47 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,968
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

You pay what you are supposed to pay. How or what your ex uses the money is none of your concern. Perhaps she is a better money manager? Totally irrelevant.

Why don't you suggest (as the two of you are both high income earners) a jointly set up a trust for the children.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 03:48 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,248
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
So what are people suppose to do. Separate foods for kids and CP? How do you separate heat, hydro, water and etc?

I get the train of thought, I just don't get how that could be done in a reasonable way that makes sense.
Well, if you really wanted to get picky, it could be done by regular financial disclosure along the lines of the expenses section of the Financial Statement form 13. Keeping receipts and showing household bills.

For household expenses (rent/mortgage, gas, electricity, water, transportation, TV, internet, phone, insurance, etc), you could say kids under 13 require .5 the cost of an adult, and kids 13 and over are the same as an adult. Children's clothing and other needs would be 100% attributed to the kids.

Then the courts could get even more clogged up by exes fighting over specific expenses or nondisclosure of them.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 03:57 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 13
seekinghelp is on a distinguished road
Default

@strange_brew - don't try to understand the system... I think it's slightly flawed for the person with the higher income (but I could be bias) and those who don't want to take advantage of the system... It probably works well for the deadbeat dads who don't want to pay.

My ex left me, took half my pension, I pay almost $900 (the offset based on my salary and her salary) a month in child support and 70% of all their extra-ordinary expenses (like daycare). Which I still don't quite get since I thought that child support was meant to even out our household incomes? I struggle to break even each month (with average household expenses) and she can afford gym memberships, new car and a new wardrobe. I'm sure there is another 100 members on here that can write the same sob story.

So regardless of the number of zeros you each have in your salaries, it all comes down to entitlement... "the system" forces you (as the larger income) to provide child support... if she wants it, you have to pay ...however she can also agree not to take it. You can probably judge which action she will take from your situation.

There is no point in trying to understand it... I still struggle with this... you just have to go with it and pay it if she is requesting. I assume with your salaries you have lawyers looking after your interest... that's a must.

Good luck - it's in your best interest to try and keep the peace... that's my philosophy :-) for the kids, if nothing else

BTW: POF is an online dating site "Plenty of Fish" .. not necessarily a classy one.. Think one of the posters is more interested in your ex-spouses income verses trying to give some words of support.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2014, 04:06 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,146
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

CanLII - 2003 CanLII 45913 (QC CS)

pretty interesting, i wonder how this went down in the court room
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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Claiming Legal Fees (Case Law) For Tax Deduction in Child Support Matters Tayken Financial Issues 51 09-15-2014 04:27 PM
ODF beats ILA Rioe Divorce & Family Law 18 01-03-2014 05:40 PM
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 08:43 AM
Joint Effort to Change Table Amounts of CS 350_dad Political Issues 43 12-18-2009 02:01 AM
Will I be Paying Spousal Support? North of You Financial Issues 5 10-21-2009 04:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:34 PM.