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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 07:54 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,844
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Hi Serene. What ages are the children? I had the impression that they were older - past the age of prolonged good-byes anyhow. Was it your weekend access time? I guess if the kids are in an organized sport (league play) the parents can both attend. Maybe an alternate extracurricular activity, for when you have the kids, has to be planned? Situation sounds terrible. Aren't the kids a tad embarrassed by mother's coddling?
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 10:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,587
Serene is on a distinguished road
Default

Children are 7 and 12. It was our weekend access time indeed.

I would think the children were embarrassed. However, this is one of those things you don't ask the child as it wouldn't be appropriate. Having mom leaning on a 12 year old and holding his hand throughout the activity isn't appropriate at all. I wouldn't even think it is appropriate for a 5 year old either. I mean, the intent is to have children in an activity for them to PARTICIPATE in an activity. Mom and child play times should be a separate event. Parents who want to support their children in an activity typically do so from a distance. To note, she was the only parent amongst 80 or so kids exhibiting this behaviour... sigh....
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:38 AM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
My experience has been that the 40% thing is just a guideline and nothing more. My ex attempted the same recalculation of cs on the 40% rule and wasn't successful. With no hardship on him paying guideline, the judge wasn't about it entertain it in case conference or settlement conference (years ago - now it isn't a problem since he hasn't seen her in 2 years).

I always wondered if my ex thought I was able to rent her bedroom or something on the 40% time he had her. As the custodial parent, my expenses were no less if she was with him 41% as opposed to 39%, so it's an argument I've never really understood to be honest.
Wow, just wow.

Its a simple concept that he incurs significant if not equal costs for his 40% of the time, yet he was paying CS as if his access was 0% (ie no costs).

How you fail to recognize this, and expected him to pay you 100% of his CS guideline costs to raise the child, all while he was raising the child 40% of the time, is truly sickening, and not in the best interests of your child.

Last edited by billm; 01-20-2014 at 11:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
Wow, just wow.

Its a simple concept that he incurs significant if not equal costs for his 40% of the time, yet he was paying CS as if his access was 0% (ie no costs).

How you fail to recognize this, and expected him to pay you 100% of his CS guideline costs to raise the child, all while he was raising the child 40% of the time, is truly sickening.
Bill:

What is truly sickening is him going to court to have his CS reduced because of the 40% threshold and then deciding to completely ignore her for two years.

What is truly sickening is that the 40% thing was about money for him, not the child. Had the 40% recalculation taken place he would be paying reduced child support and not using access any of the time.

What is truly sickening is showing up to your custody hearing via telephone because you live 2500km away but won't relinquish control.

What is truly sickening is that HE tried to use access to avoid his financial responsibilities and now successfully avoids both the financial responsibility and parental responsibility.

What is truly sickening is that you don't have any grasp on what I'm dealing with here but are willing to bash anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
Wow, just wow.

Its a simple concept that he incurs significant if not equal costs for his 40% of the time, yet he was paying CS as if his access was 0% (ie no costs).

How you fail to recognize this, and expected him to pay you 100% of his CS guideline costs to raise the child, all while he was raising the child 40% of the time, is truly sickening, and not in the best interests of your child.
Tell me Bill, why doesn't child support go over guideline when you are responsible for the child 100% of the time and therefore 100% of the costs. If guideline can be reduced to address a 40% contribution in expenses from the access parent, why isn't it increased to represent a 0% contribution from the "access" parent. Who, by the way isn't even requesting access any longer.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:51 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
Tell me Bill, why doesn't child support go over guideline when you are responsible for the child 100% of the time and therefore 100% of the costs. If guideline can be reduced to address a 40% contribution in expenses from the access parent, why isn't it increased to represent a 0% contribution from the "access" parent. Who, by the way isn't even requesting access any longer.
In quebec it does, failure to exercise access can result in a 20% increase in child support.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
In quebec it does, failure to exercise access can result in a 20% increase in child support.
No such provision in Ontario from what I can figure out. I'm not looking for increased CS in my most recent Motion to Change. All I want is the status quo reflected in our agreement.

He doesn't even request access. Why? Probably because that would mean using his vacation time to see his child or potentially having to pay airfare for her to go there. And money is all that motivates this guy, so I imagine it will be years and years before she sees her dad again.

Now that's the sad thing. Not that he didn't get a marginal reduction for 40.5% access time that he's never bothered to shop up for.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 11:58 AM
Janibel's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Way up North
Posts: 1,497
Janibel will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
In quebec it does, failure to exercise access can result in a 20% increase in child support.
That's how it should be, parents who are unwilling to participate in their own children's care are penalized for it. Vive le Quebec!
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 12:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janibel View Post
That's how it should be, parents who are unwilling to participate in their own children's care are penalized for it. Vive le Quebec!
I agree Janibel. He doesn't participate in anything. He tries to control a lot, but participates in nothing. He doesn't even call her on her birthday - not even collect like I've invited him to do.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2014, 12:07 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,409
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

I thought the support tables pre-supposed that the majority of child expenditures were born by the CP. Is that not the case?
[I've never really looked at how they were initially calculated in 1997].
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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 PM.