ss Entitlement Exceptions

[stressedby-X]

Hello,
Does anyone have any advice or experience with exceptions to paying spousal support?

I have two children in sole custody - X walked off his job seven months after separation - and has not worked since we have been separated for three years. He does not take part or support me with parenting. Even if I paid spousal support I do not believe that this would lead to self sufficiency.

My lawyer thinks that he is not entitled .......but all the stuff I have been reading indicates that that he may be. I have the means and he has the need.

I am supporting three people while he is just supporting himself.

Would the judge likely leave things status quo?

Is there a time limit to file spousal support?

The Exceptions don't seem clear to me when I was reading the guidelines.

[HatesCheaters]

Does he pay tabled Child Support for his two kids? If not, then I would think he has more to lose by hitting you up for spousal (which I personally don't believe him losing his job gives him entitlement).

[stressedby-X]

No actually he does not pay any child support. At the time of of separation our incomes were about 40K different (me being the higher earner).

Since three years have passed my income has gone up an additional 20K which makes our incomes 60K different. This is only if the judge imputes his income to his original income which was around 45K. Seven months after we separated he walked off his job. So he has only himself to blame for not having employment. He has done little if anything to secure employment.

I am not requesting any child support but could ask for $1.00. I do not want to pay support and that is why I am looking for exceptions. Everything I have read says I pay based on needs and mean. Obviously there is more to the story but basically:
-he does not see the children unless I initiate contact
-and it looks like his bad behaviour isn't considered in deciding support

So now what?

[HatesCheaters]

Ontario Child Support Guidelines show that he should be paying you $680 every month in child support (and he pays the tax on this) based on $45k imputed. The question that I still have after reading your posts is: Is he asking for spousal support?

[stressedby-X]

Well there are a lot of what ifs here....

We went for the settlement conference and his lawyer argued that he would be entitled to spousal support. He is currently unemployed (by his own choice). he walked off his job. I am sure it wasn't his idea but this scared me. I make a fair sum to support three people but hate the idea of having to support someone who is unwilling to help themselves.

During the settlement conference his lawyer argued that he is disabled and unable to work. The funny part is he stood up and said there is nothing wrong with him he could work. My lawyer tells me this is not admissible if we go to trial.

I would be happy to support myself and two children. He could support himself but everything that I have been reading suggests that I have the means and he has a need.

In addition I would be paying a large equalization payment to him. I am not comfortable rolling the dice with the judge that is why I am looking for exceptions to spousal support.

He has been self sufficent for three years - living with mom, not sure where he is getting his money? and has not actively looked for employment. He does not assist me with the kids at all.

[HatesCheaters]

I understand your concern about having to support someone who should be fully capable of supporting himself. I am amazed at the gall of this guy. He does not provide a dime of support for his two children (which he is legally obligated to..and no judge will let him out of) yet seeks a handout for himself when he should be moving on with his life now that your relationship is over.

Even though this is your life, lawyers play this like a game so it is no surprise why his lawyer would try to push you to agree to paying his client whether he deserves it or not.

Where is your lawyer in this? Is he or she not pushing back that he will owe you $680*12*3= $24,480 in unpaid child support for the past 3 years. And that his spousal support may amount to about $500/month whereas you will push to impute the $680 for CS so he will owe you $180/month. Not sure he would continue with this tack if he knew that it would mean he would pay you every month.

How long were you married? Did he give up his career and stay at home with the kids? Does he have real medical proof of a disability? Just trying to scope out why he thinks he has a claim of entitlement.

[billm]

Originally Posted by HatesCheaters

...
Where is your lawyer in this? Is he or she not pushing back that he will owe you $680*12*3= $24,480 in unpaid child support for the past 3 years. And that his spousal support may amount to about $500/month whereas you will push to impute the $680 for CS so he will owe you $180/month. Not sure he would continue with this tack if he knew that it would mean he would pay you every month.

The guy has not made 45K for the past 3 years so he does not owe CS as if he did! He quit his job because he has genuine issues. He is supporting himself somehow, either by working or by his parents. If he is being supported by his parents then an income of some kind should be imputed on him for the value of that support for CS calculation. If he is working and supporting himself that way, then that income should be used for CS calculation.

I don't think SS is necessary because he worked during the marriage and it did not effect his career. Some people think that if you become disabled during or after the marriage then the former spouse should support you - I don't agree with this. His issues are not a result of the marriage and she has no obligation to support him if he can't work due to those issues in my opinion. This though is not how the courts work I believe.

All assets and debts should be split 50/50 and that should be independent of the CS/SS issues, unless of course they are exchanged (ie. equity in exchange for SS for example).

[HatesCheaters]

Originally Posted by billm

He quit his job because he has genuine issues.

Billm: Care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion? For him to be able to make this claim against her for spousal he will need to prove in court that he has a disability which prevents him from any employment (which he has yet to provide her with any medical subtantiation) and that somehow she needs to pay him spousal. Don't believe this will be an easy task. Even then, it does not absolve him from paying child support. What about the seven months after separation where he was working? If he had paid table amounts for those seven months (as we are all expected to do) then left for a medical disability, it would be a more plausible claim. Seems to me like he wants to forget his obligations for child support completely but have her pay him while he is unemployed.
My point was that she should not just listen to his lawyers threats and that even paying spousal support to him may be mitigated by what he will owe her in any retroactive child support plus future monthly tabled amounts..whatever salary he is imputed. Doesn't get to walk away from the kids.

[billm]

Originally Posted by HatesCheaters

Billm: Care to elaborate on how you came to that conclusion?

Okay. This was from another thread.

Originally Posted by stressedby-X

I think the beginning problem was depression but then resorted to alcohol - which is what I see the main problem

It seems that stressedby-X does to some extent believe that her ex is not working due to mental issues.

My point was that he is supporting himself, that she does not owe SS in my opinion, and his CS should be derived from how he is supporting himself (directly or indirectly through parents) - and it should be retro to when they split - assuming that assets/debts have been delt with, which I don't think they have.

MOST people who have a decent job (and make 45K), don't quit that job and start living with mom and dad to avoid CS payments - especially considering that there is a case for SS which may offset the CS. Some people (the courts) believe in sharing net disposible income - which given that she make more than him would be a case for SS - so why would he stop working unless he had issues? Given this, it is not fair to impute an income on him that he is not making - BUT he is supporing himself, he does have an income, and that should be used for CS calculation - not his previous 45 K income.

I do wonder though what is going on with the marital assets and debts...I get the impression that he has walked away from that and has not received his fair share - but I am not sure and I don't want to reread the posts again!

[billiechic]

For fairness sake, he shouldn't get SS unless he has a disability (mental included) that was there during the marriage. IF he was capable of working pre-divorce, why should he get a free ride now, and WHY should the ex pay? JMHO, but we all know the court doesn't work that way....