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 06-06-2017, 08:54 PM
mcdreamy's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,414
mcdreamy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by len14 View Post
My adversity to offset CS is because purpose of why it's in place in the first place is not respected. Intent is to equalize standards in both households, if that component is fulfilled through whatever means, then what is the actual purpose of child support in shared custody? It simply makes no sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"whatever means" ? new girlfriend, new boyfriend? How about the 2 actual parents, standardize their incomes.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 08:28 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 41
len14 is on a distinguished road
Default

Can I understand why offset support if living standard is the same in both households in shared situation? Whatever means could be shared living with a new spouse (decreased expenses now allow for more), could be living with grandparents, lottery, inheritance etc. In our situation both parents have same level of education, same years in the workforce, shared maternal/paternal leave. Yet one remains under employed and turns down promotion (openly admits this)bc she is happy and stress free. So she will continue to do bare minimum, have an abundance of free time to scrap book when the children are with us 60% (she measures the hours to make sure she stays just above 40%- she has a spreadsheet) of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 09:29 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,246
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by len14 View Post
Can I understand why offset support if living standard is the same in both households in shared situation? Whatever means could be shared living with a new spouse (decreased expenses now allow for more), could be living with grandparents, lottery, inheritance etc. In our situation both parents have same level of education, same years in the workforce, shared maternal/paternal leave. Yet one remains under employed and turns down promotion (openly admits this)bc she is happy and stress free. So she will continue to do bare minimum, have an abundance of free time to scrap book when the children are with us 60% (she measures the hours to make sure she stays just above 40%- she has a spreadsheet) of the time.
Child Support is determined purely from the incomes of the two parents. Not their assets, and not the income of their new partner or any other people they live with. A parent is legally required to devote a proportion of their income to their child, no matter where that child lives.

Offset does distribute the CS in a slightly odd manner, but the intention is still for both parents to be supporting the child in proportion to their own income. So money flows from the higher income parent to the lower income parent. Regardless of what else either parent has going on in their financial situation.

There are remedies to this, if the situation is unfair, however. Those are called 'undue hardship' and 'imputation of income.' To get either going though, you usually have to go to court, because the lower income parent isn't going to voluntarily agree.

Undue hardship is a declaration that the households' financial picture is so one-sided that it would be too much of a hardship to have the money flow from the higher income parent to the lower income parent, due to the differences in the whole household that would result. Like if the higher income parent is still single and the lower income parent is supported by a wealthy new partner. You would go to court to ask that the total household income be considered, not just the individual parents' incomes. I'm told that to prove this is necessary, the one household has to be really suffering in comparison to the other one though, like struggling to afford the normal bills.

Imputation of income is a determination that the lower income parent is deliberately underemployed or unemployed, and taking advantage of the increased CS from the higher income parent to cover their own self-created shortfall. Like someone who works part-time when they could be full-time, resulting in getting more CS through the offset system. You would go to court to ask that the offset CS calculation use a pretend income that the lower-income parent should be making, instead of what they are actually making. I'm told that to prove this is the case, you need to be able to demonstrate that the other parent could be working more and has deliberately chosen not to, for whatever reason.

You have to look at your particular situation and figure out which option most applies to it, and your likelihood of success.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 11:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,048
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by len14 View Post
Can I understand why offset support if living standard is the same in both households in shared situation? Whatever means could be shared living with a new spouse (decreased expenses now allow for more), could be living with grandparents, lottery, inheritance etc. In our situation both parents have same level of education, same years in the workforce, shared maternal/paternal leave. Yet one remains under employed and turns down promotion (openly admits this)bc she is happy and stress free. So she will continue to do bare minimum, have an abundance of free time to scrap book when the children are with us 60% (she measures the hours to make sure she stays just above 40%- she has a spreadsheet) of the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Turning down promotions does not make on underemployed in my opinion. If she is working full time in a good position which she must be, there are no laws stating one must take promotions or more work load to increase their salary. Some people don't want the added stress and if she's making a decent wage no judge will fault her for that. Now if she was making min wage with a high level of education one could argue she is underemployed. There is nothing forcing your partner to accept promotions and a higher work load. If your partner chooses to do that well that decision is his to make. If he doesn't want to increase his CS then he can stop taking promotions and stay in his current position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-07-2017, 01:15 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 41
len14 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
Turning down promotions does not make on underemployed in my opinion. If she is working full time in a good position which she must be, there are no laws stating one must take promotions or more work load to increase their salary. Some people don't want the added stress and if she's making a decent wage no judge will fault her for that. Now if she was making min wage with a high level of education one could argue she is underemployed. There is nothing forcing your partner to accept promotions and a higher work load. If your partner chooses to do that well that decision is his to make. If he doesn't want to increase his CS then he can stop taking promotions and stay in his current position.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Income is the determining factors in child support for sole custody. As per child support guidelines for shared situations there's other factors that are supposed to be taken into account -

the amount set out in the provincial and territorial child support tables, by income for each parent;
the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
the means and needs of the parents and the children.

The guidelines are well defined. The interpretation and application of CS offset is the problem.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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
Half-Offset Child Support Shared Custody Knave Financial Issues 9 03-22-2016 04:59 PM
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 20 01-02-2014 12:19 PM
Reinstating Child Support maggie99 Financial Issues 14 09-01-2010 01:47 PM
Retroactive Child Support (Ont) Mess Divorce & Family Law 21 03-02-2010 01:41 AM
Joint Effort to Change Table Amounts of CS 350_dad Political Issues 43 12-18-2009 02:01 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 AM.