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
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2016, 08:43 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

I don't understand how you can be paying full CS and have shared custody.... I think I told you that you should have appealed that.... Its ridiculous and now you are paying for it....
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2016, 09:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,205
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SadAndTired View Post
Sure. Brainstorming. How about you write out the part of the order that says she has to find employment so everyone can provide relevant advice?
that would help. As far as anyone knows the order is vague and really not enforceable.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2016, 09:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 545
paris is on a distinguished road
Default

You aren't paying offset CS. She could start a job tomorrow, but your order still doesn't say offset CS. Go back and get that first with an imputed income.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 07:56 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,517
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paris View Post
You aren't paying offset CS. She could start a job tomorrow, but your order still doesn't say offset CS. Go back and get that first with an imputed income.
Yes the order states offset and she was ordered to find full time employment. Offset is in black and white......but she's exuding not to work .. so no offset yet. Just need her to follow the order and things are solved.
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 08:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,205
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Yes the order states offset and she was ordered to find full time employment. Offset is in black and white......but she's exuding not to work .. so no offset yet. Just need her to follow the order and things are solved.
the big question is ...does it state a specific time frame when she has to find full time work? At least the offset part is in the order.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 08:29 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,517
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
the big question is ...does it state a specific time frame when she has to find full time work? At least the offset part is in the order.
No .. it doesn't give a timeframe.

Berner .. I'm not here on odf to work on my budget.

You'll just have to trust that I'm being truthful about my situation and that I've cut out all the expenses possible. If you don't trust me than this will be a circular conversation .. which will go nowhere.

The part about her seeking employment goes like this.

Quote:
The Respondent must obtain and is currently seeking employment. Once the Respondent is employed full time for over 30 days, she shall provide the Applicant of her income, and the child support will be modified using the offset approach.
So kind of sucks .. and the reason for my questions.
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 09:16 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,489
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LovingFather32 View Post
Yes the order states offset and she was ordered to find full time employment. Offset is in black and white......but she's exuding not to work .. so no offset yet. Just need her to follow the order and things are solved.
Incorrect. Offset is being paid if you truly understand how it works.

Parent A full table amount $1000.
Parent B full table amount $0.0.

Subtract lowest from highest.

Parent A 1000 - Parent B 0 = 1000 Paid to Parent B

Without the specifics of the order no one can truly help you.


If your agreement is marked FINAL and there is no option for the matter to return for further determination what you have are a bunch of words on paper. More than likely you have no recourse to return to court.

Again, we need the specific wording. The reality is no one can help you brainstorm as this is a very specific circumstance that needs all the ducks lined up very well or you face MASSIVE COSTS for being disruptive to the courts.

My understanding is your materials are marked "FINAL". So, you would need to demonstrate a material change has occurred. You settled the matter with her earning 0.0 in income that could be used for an offset calculation. Nothing has changed. Just your opinion that the other parent must work.

It sounds like your agreement is a bunch of "should do" and no "must do". Should is a strong suggestion but, not a requirement.

I hate to throw gas on the fire but, SoTSL and SnT are correct. It is hard to help without the exact wording.


Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 09:26 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,489
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
The Respondent must obtain and is currently seeking employment. Once the Respondent is employed full time for over 30 days, she shall provide the Applicant of her income, and the child support will be modified using the offset approach.
Can you try again? The grammar on this is awful. The first sentence is so bad that I doubt two lawyers even looked at it.

An order or agreement would not state "is currently seeking employment". They never write orders or agreement in the present tense like this.

They are more like this:

Quote:
the Applicant should provide a daily summary (from the date of this order/agreement) setting out all efforts she has made to obtain employment, generate income, or otherwise satisfy her obligation for child support by some_date. The parties shall enter into arbitration no later some_reasonable_date to determine the applicable child support both parties are to pay in accordance with their access agreement and the offset method of calculating child support.
What you have is a friendly suggestion that the other party should do something. Not that they must do it and by a specific date. You have no real option to bring this matter back. The only one you have is "undue hardship" which you don't really have.

You accepted the terms of an agreement where the other parent's income was not imputed for the purposes of calculating child support. You are out of luck. You accepted the terms of an agreement where the other parent is allowed to make 0.0.

Did you review with a lawyer? If so you should punch that lawyer in the eye.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 09:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,205
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

the wording doesn't make sense. I think you left something out. What is she suppose to provide the applicant?

I agree with Tayken, this cant be the exact wording from your order. The way it is written is to vague and there are grammar mistakes. Please provide the EXACT wording if you wish to have people help you. As it stands now, I don't think you have a case. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2016, 10:04 AM
LovingFather32's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 4,517
LovingFather32 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
the wording doesn't make sense. I think you left something out. What is she suppose to provide the applicant?

I agree with Tayken, this cant be the exact wording from your order. The way it is written is to vague and there are grammar mistakes. Please provide the EXACT wording if you wish to have people help you. As it stands now, I don't think you have a case. Sorry.
This is the EXACT wording. I can't help their lack of grammar. lol

Yep, very vague. But any future judge would get the gist (I would think), that she is to find work. There's another section that states that ex is to enroll D5 in a daycare if she finds childcare is hindering her ability to seek employment . This of course was before D5 began school.

The wording of the order is word for word what I wrote above though. I know .. a sloppy, quick legal aid SC type paragraph that's unenforceable I'm sure. But again, I'm sure any future judge would wonder why she didn't get a job. The wording clearly states that IMO. Kid's in school full days. Judges are pretty smart right?

Last edited by LovingFather32; 06-22-2016 at 10:05 AM. Reason: spelling
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 05:33 AM.