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 05-19-2017, 08:30 AM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,298
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default Child Support for shared and Split Custody

Was reading a case where one child is shared (50%) and the other lives only with the father. Child support was not calculated the way I expected.

http://canlii.ca/t/h3rfb

Quote:
[18] I am therefore of the view that child support for 2016 should be based on Mr. Rupertís income for that year of $132,751, net of union dues, and Ms. Rupertís income of $74,000 which is now known. As Sarah currently spends greater than 40% of her time with each parent, the amount Mr. Rupert is to pay in child support for Sarah each month is subject to set off pursuant to section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines. The amount payable for Sarahís support in turn is set off by the amount that Ms. Rupert shall pay Mr. Rupert for Samantha under the circumstances. The net amount Mr. Rupert is therefore ordered to pay Ms. Rupert for child support on a temporary basis is therefore $43 a month, which was calculated on the 2016 income of each party using DivorceMate software.
In the forum I feel we all mostly agree that it was (support for 2) - (support for 1), with whatever adjustments are necessary. This calculation by the judge here appears to me to be (offset for 1) - (CS for 1).
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 08:33 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,900
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

I wonder if some of these decisions factor in the income differences? Anyone over $100,000 seems to get different treatment!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-19-2017, 05:42 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

I love math problems! Here's another situation where my dream system of CS would help make it easy.

His CS for two kids is 1812.41.
His for one kid is 1134.26.
Her CS for two kids is 1091.00.
Hers for one kid is 673.00.
Straight from Ontario tables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
In the forum I feel we all mostly agree that it was (support for 2) - (support for 1), with whatever adjustments are necessary.


I need more information before I can make this calculation. Whose income gets subtracted from whose? What adjustments do you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
This calculation by the judge here appears to me to be (offset for 1) - (CS for 1).
Offset for one = 1134.26-673 = 461.26
minus CS for one from her = 461.26 - 673 = 211.74

so I'm not sure where he's getting his $43 figure from but it's not from the calculation you are describing.

My guess would be that he's doing offset for TWO minus CS for one from her.

1812.41-1091= 721.41
721.41-673= 48.41.

Which is still not $43, but at least it's closer.

My way:

He pays his table CS for two kids into a 'kitty.'
She pays her table CS for two kids into the 'kitty.'
He pulls out 75% of the total.
She gets the other 25%.
This is in proportion to how much time they each have with the kids; one with him full time and one shared 50-50.

They put in a total of 1812.41+1091=2903.41
He takes out 2177.56 and she takes out 725.85.

But she has to put in more than she takes out.
1091-725.85 = 365.15

So she should be paying him $365.15 a month to make that imaginary 'kitty' work out right.

There should just be one straightforward way of doing things that apply to all situations. Judges should have to do as little math as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2017, 09:23 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 72
Aghast is on a distinguished road
Default

I am in this same situation. I wish I knew how the calculation worked because I would like to present it.

3 kids: s17 full time with me
d15 50/50, d10 50/50

note: s17 and d15 are both with me ft now but I haven't thought about those calculations so I will go with the one above.

Here is why (support for 3)-(support for 2) doesn't work.
It is apparent when you break it down to "per child"

The person paying support for 3, pays less per child than if they were paying support for 2.
The person paying support for 2, pays MORE per child because the offset doesn't take into consideration that this person actually has 3 children.

It is easier to see if we give the example of 2 people who make an equal amount of money. Let's say $50,000.

So lets say they have 3 children and they are shared 50/50.
Each parent would pay $959, and the offset would be $0

Now 1 child moves full time with one of the parents.
(support for 3)-(support for 2)=$959-$743=$216
$216 goes to the parent with the full time child and 2 50/50

Let's break it down. Support for 3 is $959 which amounts to $319.67 per child
Support for 2 is $743 which amounts to $371.50 per child.
So the person who has a child at home full time actually pays more for the other 2 than the spouse.

Each child, when 50/50, had a value of $319.67 from each parent.
NOW...each child has a value of $319.67 for the payer parent but, the full time child's value has decreased to $216, while the other 2 children's value has increased to $371.50 for the recipient parent.

The offset amount omits the 3rd child for the parent who has that child full time.

If you went offset for 2 and then full support for 1. You would get an offset of $0 for the 2 50/50 children, and the support for the single full time child would be $450!! A difference of $234 from the previous calculation.

I feel that the latter calculation is more correct. Of course it is because I am in that situation lol.

Alternatively, and more fair, even I have to admit, would be to assign a value to each child based on your income. (tabled amount/#of children in total). Then pay for the number of children who reside with the other parent.

For the above example, each child would have a value of $319.67.
One spouse would pay $319.67 x3 to the one spouse, the other would pay $319.67 x2 to the other. The offset would be $319.67, therefore the child who is full time would be valued EQUALLY rather than less than the other 2.

Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2017, 12:23 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,217
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aghast View Post
It is easier to see if we give the example of 2 people who make an equal amount of money. Let's say $50,000.

So lets say they have 3 children and they are shared 50/50.Each parent would pay $959, and the offset would be $0

Now 1 child moves full time with one of the parents.
Okay, applying my system, the parents would each pay $959 each, for a total of $1918 available to support the three children.

The children's time is divided on a 2:1 ratio. So the parent with the one child full time takes 2/3 of that for $1278.67, and the other parent takes the last 1/3 for $639.33. Which means that $319.67 should change hands, just as you calculated.

It's the whole equal value per child, which the tables do NOT assign. Going from one child to two does not simply double the table amount. Legally, each additional child is supposed to cost the parents less. I imagine someone somewhere decided that because parents re-use the cribs and playpens and bicycles and have hand-me-down clothes, that further children are not as expensive as the first child.

So the whole CS system falls apart in the case of twins. And when you think about it, a three-bedroom house costs more than a two-bedroom house, not less!

Anyways, they say you can't get what you don't ask for. So present what you consider to be the most fair to your ex in an offer to settle, and then if it goes to court, present it to the judge. Expect the judge to be reluctant though, because they don't like going against what has gone before, unless they truly understand how unfair it is, and how much better what you are proposing is.

I'd suggest finding caselaw that supports half offset, for a start.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2017, 06:03 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 72
Aghast is on a distinguished road
Default

lol.
well I am not very articulate so my argument won't be great and I am not experienced so I will make mistakes.

Therefore I am going to offer more than I think I should pay but less than they are asking for and hope for the best.

I'm not sure I should argue my calculations in a motion. I don't want to eat up all my time trying to explain it when I have to argue for imputing an income as well.

Anyone else is free to use my method and hopefully create a fairer way to calculate split custody awards.
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
re-calculation of time for access Tatyana K Divorce & Family Law 74 11-09-2016 03:19 PM
Feedback please for Separation agreement: Child support section baldclub Financial Issues 1 09-16-2012 11:04 PM
Just received notice of court case (custody, child support) - have questions Aelon Divorce & Family Law 1 12-07-2011 03:02 PM
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 07:43 AM
Difficult situation please advise Mikesgal Divorce & Family Law 5 05-09-2006 02:56 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 PM.