Support payments under shared custody

[miragesailor]

I'm gong to try again and see if I can get a clearer answer from any folks on this forum around the issue of support payments in a shared custody arrangement.

I know from researching the topic that in these arrangements the support amount to be paid is the difference between what each parent would pay the other for their custody of the children, with the higher earner paying the difference to the lower earner.

How often does this actually happen in the real world, or is it so hard to get a court order for this that most people who would stand to benefit from it don't even bother trying?

If this is actually the way it works most of the time, what's the likelihood of it when one parent makes almost twice as much as the other parent?

[Kenny]

The Family Law Act, Child Support Guidelines (Ontario Regulation 391/97), paragraph 9 states:

"Shared custody
9. Where a parent or spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the order for the support of a child must be determined by taking into account,

(a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the parents or spouses;

(b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and

(c) the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each parent or spouse and of any child for whom support is sought. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 9."

How this regulation is interpreted can be found with a little effort in searching CANLII cases (CanLII). If the split custody is very clear and the children seem to be enjoying two primary residences, the court would probably grant child support based on an income differential basis. That means if she owes you $600 per month in child support, but you would owe her $700 per month, $100 would be payable as the differential.

From personal experience, my current common-law spouse has this exact situation with her ex-husband. The differential is so small they ignore it. Of course, they get along!

Hope this helps.

[miragesailor]

Thanks Kenny. Nice talking to you the other day. You were a big help.

[billm]

This is called the 'offset method'.

And FYI, it is a still a rip off to the higher income earner because mathematically it assumes it costs twice as much to raise kids in two homes as compared to one. That is not true as some costs are not duplicated, such as clothes, food, etc., not to mention the tendency to control spending and costs given the higher costs of two homes putting pressure in the budget.

[miragesailor]

It is a rip-off because it only takes into account the gross income for the calculation and not the net disposable income in each household. The lower income earner usually pays much less in taxes and gets higher child benefits from the government...my case. But I guess some recognition is better than nothing in this case.

[billm]

Originally Posted by miragesailor

It is a rip-off because it only takes into account the gross income for the calculation and not the net disposable income in each household. The lower income earner usually pays much less in taxes and gets higher child benefits from the government...my case. But I guess some recognition is better than nothing in this case.

The CS tables do take into account taxes and benefits.

[miragesailor]

Originally Posted by billm

The CS tables do take into account taxes and benefits.

They do?!? All the ones I find only ask for "Annual Gross Income"

[Kenny]

It is built-in to the formula that created the amounts.

One a side note, four years ago I had lunch with the lawyer who was part of the original formula creation. Good conversation!

[billm]

Yes, but they are aware of the tax implications of the gross income.

[miragesailor]

Originally Posted by billm

Yes, but they are aware of the tax implications of the gross income.

Then I guess it is fair to say "it is fair" if all this is taken into account then.