Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce Support

Divorce Support This forum is for discussing the emotional aspects of divorce: stress, anger, betrayal of trust and more.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #141 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 10:33 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Thanks Beach. I may do that.
Reply With Quote
  #142 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 10:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 228
PeacefulMoments is on a distinguished road
Default

LF:

The way I see it there are two sides to the issue. The financial side of your ex being imputed income, thus lessening your CS burden and tight finances, and the emotional side of feeling the injustice of the situation.

On the financial side alone, leaving out emotion, the only solution is imputed income and I am not experienced enough to know if it is long enough after the final order to file a motion for this, or if you need to wait another 6 months or a year. Either way, without the ex actually obtaining employment and then reporting that income, it will be at least a year or two before you see any financial relief. Unfortunately, you will just have to deal with the financial strain with whatever methods are available to you(more income or less expenses). Easy? Probably not, but no other quick solution.

As to the second, emotional part, that is often more difficult. It would be easy to sit and stew about the perceived injustice of the situation and I myself have often been emotionally distraught and upset by whatever injustice was occurring at the time. I have learned over time however, that allowing myself to be that upset not only didn't change the situation, it gave way too much power to the person or institution that perpetrated the injustice. I have learned to focus on the positive and on whatever actions I can take to help myself. Also, I eat too much dessert, lol. You know the saying, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down!

Anyway, find whatever works for you to smooth out the emotions. No sense being both broke and angry!
Reply With Quote
  #143 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 10:47 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,901
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

When she asks you that you need to say "Im not discussing this with you. I pay my cs to FRO, you can deal with them." They are actually prompt with payments so there could be an issue on her end with her banking. Shes home all day, she has the luxury of waiting for their call.
Reply With Quote
  #144 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 11:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,328
Beachnana is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefull View Post
Sigh.....isn't this guy once your son in-law? You said your daughter and the ex are both military, which if they aren't Officers (commissioned), will have at least high school education as (non-commissioned members)......why isn't she not calling FRO, and you are meddling in their business?

We are talking about an adult here (grown woman) aren't we?
Lol get off my case!

yes I am the Grandparent and yes I do help my daughter with all the paperwork. She works full time and cannot sit at home and wait for phone calls. It does take a village to raise a family and I am one of those village people!

And he was never my son- in- law! Brief relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #145 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 01:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Still trying to figure this out:

So:

The order says that Mom does not have to pay child support unless she is working full-time? And that when she is working full-time, she shall inform Dad so the offset calculations can be done?

But:

There is no timeline for when Mom will be considered to be working full-time, although the wording of the order suggests that this is a good idea.

Therefore:

Mom could go off welfare and work 25 hours a week for the next 15 years without any obligations to pay Dad offset, and she would still be acting within the order. Dad may not like it, but unless Mom is working full-time, he must continue to pay her the full table amount.

And also therefore:

Imputing an income to Mom might not be the answer, because Mom's obligation to pay CS doesn't kick in until she is working full-time, no matter how much money she is earning or imputed to earn. It might be wiser to change the wording of the order to remove any reference to full-time work, and then seek imputation.

Is this right? It sounds like Dad really got hosed by his lawyer. I've never heard of CS being waived for parents who don't work full-time, which is essentially what's going on here.
Reply With Quote
  #146 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 02:29 PM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,515
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
Still trying to figure this out:

So:

The order says that Mom does not have to pay child support unless she is working full-time? And that when she is working full-time, she shall inform Dad so the offset calculations can be done?

But:

There is no timeline for when Mom will be considered to be working full-time, although the wording of the order suggests that this is a good idea.

Therefore:

Mom could go off welfare and work 25 hours a week for the next 15 years without any obligations to pay Dad offset, and she would still be acting within the order. Dad may not like it, but unless Mom is working full-time, he must continue to pay her the full table amount.

And also therefore:

Imputing an income to Mom might not be the answer, because Mom's obligation to pay CS doesn't kick in until she is working full-time, no matter how much money she is earning or imputed to earn. It might be wiser to change the wording of the order to remove any reference to full-time work, and then seek imputation.

Is this right? It sounds like Dad really got hosed by his lawyer. I've never heard of CS being waived for parents who don't work full-time, which is essentially what's going on here.
I have kid 50/50....pay all extra curricular also.

I'll clean up if I go to court. Shouldn't be paying full table CS. Judge will look at the order and understand completely what's happening (especially when they look back to what she's done from the beginning).

Was just wondering "when" to go to court to clean up .... not "if" I'll clean up. ... that's already a given.
Reply With Quote
  #147 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 03:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

In terms of "when" - I would give it a year or two. My understanding is that judges don't look favorably on people who seek changes in an order that's only been in place for a short time - the assumption is that if you agreed to the order, you should live by the order that you signed until enough time has passed to determine whether the order is viable or not.

When you do seek a change in the order, you should definitely get rid of that "no CS unless Mom is working full time" part, so you can move to offset and register with FRO. It's still hard to believe that a lawyer actually let that pass.
Reply With Quote
  #148 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 04:26 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,901
rockscan will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
In terms of "when" - I would give it a year or two. My understanding is that judges don't look favorably on people who seek changes in an order that's only been in place for a short time - the assumption is that if you agreed to the order, you should live by the order that you signed until enough time has passed to determine whether the order is viable or not.



When you do seek a change in the order, you should definitely get rid of that "no CS unless Mom is working full time" part, so you can move to offset and register with FRO. It's still hard to believe that a lawyer actually let that pass.


I would agree with this but say start the process by next June. That way D4 will be in school full time/mandatory (grade 1) so there will be no question about mom needing to stay home.
Reply With Quote
  #149 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 09:33 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 Tayken View Post
I am trying to save you money from having to hire a lawyer, instigate further litigation, have to prove a "material change in circumstance" to even proceed to a motion hearing and having to spend easily 80,000 + in costs to get the matter to trial for a final decision? For what a reduction of 230-300 in monthly CS?
Material change in circumstance. That has me thinking. The way his paragraph was (badly) worded implies that the judge anticipated that there would be a material change in circumstance when the job-seeking mother of the time found employment. So he built into the agreement what would change when that happened.

What turned out to happen was that the mother stopped her facade of job-seeking and is ignoring her financial obligations to the child because the father must pick up her slack, as per the court order.

Can you ever go back to court because of a lack of anticipated material change in circumstance?

I do think that the appropriate thing is for LF to wait a reasonable amount of time (who knows what that might be?) and then go back to court to ask that the mother's income be imputed, as she has chosen to remain unemployed, which was against the spirit of the court order, and against the spirit of shared parenting and the offset CS system.
Reply With Quote
  #150 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2016, 10:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,203
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Material change in circumstance. That has me thinking. The way his paragraph was (badly) worded implies that the judge anticipated that there would be a material change in circumstance when the job-seeking mother of the time found employment. So he built into the agreement what would change when that happened.

What turned out to happen was that the mother stopped her facade of job-seeking and is ignoring her financial obligations to the child because the father must pick up her slack, as per the court order.

Can you ever go back to court because of a lack of anticipated material change in circumstance?

I do think that the appropriate thing is for LF to wait a reasonable amount of time (who knows what that might be?) and then go back to court to ask that the mother's income be imputed, as she has chosen to remain unemployed, which was against the spirit of the court order, and against the spirit of shared parenting and the offset CS system.
I think that would not fly with no actual time frame for the mother to start working. Anticipated means basically you hope that something will happen in the future. With no date, you are still anticipating. If a judge expected her to work within a certain time frame, he would have set a time frame.
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 10:40 PM.