another question about child support

[frustratedwithex]

I live in Alberta and have been reading this forum for a few months now. I can't seem to find a forum for Alberta, so hopefully I can find some help here.

I know there are other questions and answers for this same question about child support, and I have also checked out the government web site, and I am still confused.

My STBX has a three figure income which is made up of a base salary and a long list of additional benefits, as well as a yearly bonus. He wants to ignore his NOA, start with his base salary, (this number keeps changing) and add only the benefits he thinks should be relevant. This results in the exclusion of a huge portion of his total income. He also believes that the Federal Child Support Guidelines are just Guidelines and only a starting point, an outrageously unfair starting point. He also wants his bonus left out and treated separately.

After reading the Guidelines myself, I see that there are exceptions. The exception he wants is for the both of us to agree to a number for his income, (his number). This agreed upon number is what he wants used to calculate the table amount of child support.

We both have lawyers. His seems to be encouraging this and my lawyer is increasingly frustrated by this arrogant behavior.

My question is, who decides what parts of his income can be excluded?

[logicalvelocity]

A good starting point would be their reported line 150 amount for CS purposes.

[logicalvelocity]

BTW...welcome to the forum.

[frustratedwithex]

It's his line 150 that he doesn't want used.

[tugofwar]

Unfortunately, this is going to continue going on and both are going to waste money on lawyers going back and forth. The only other option is getting him to court and get the proper income disclosed this way.

[logicalvelocity]

By default, Onus rests with them to show why it shouldn't be used...It's called "Hardship" The guidelines are deemed to be Reasonable.

[frustratedwithex]

Yes, my lawyer wants to see him in court and see how he justifies his request for deductions to a judge.

I have already spent about $15k so far, and child support is the last issue. I am trying to sort this out without going to court.

[frustratedwithex]

logicalvelocity


My lawyers position is that his basis for excluding items is completly unrelated to the Child support Guidelines and reflects his own sesnse of "fairness."

[billm]

Originally Posted by frustratedwithex

Yes, my lawyer wants to see him in court ....

lol, of course your lawyer wants to go to court, that's how they make the most money!

Originally Posted by frustratedwithex

...child support is the last issue. I am trying to sort this out without going to court.

Child support is supposed to be the easy part! It is simple - his obligation to his child remains until the child is no longer a child of the marriage. His financial obligation is determined by the federal guidelines according to his income, which is his line 150 (aka NOA) income. AND this should be automatically adjusted EVERY year using his previous year's NOA. There is no wiggle room (okay there are exceptions for everything, but not wanting to acknowledge some of his income is NOT one of them).

His lawyer is costing the both of you money (though I blame your ex - he is responsible for this stupidity).

Make it clear to your ex that it is a right of the child that he pays according to his full income and you do not have the power or desire to alter that.

Going to court over this is stupid, so it probably won't get that far.

[frustratedwithex]

billm

He is also disputing the definition of "child of the marriage". Two of the three children are in university, and he wants to make up an amount he thinks is resonable. At the same time he wants to withdraw money from the RESP for room and board. The children that are in university live at home, one with him and one with me.

He also believes he has the power to alter what ever he wants, and has written me e-mails telling me how wrong I am, my lawyer is, his lawyer is and how wrong the Guidlines are, and that I will lose if this goes to court.

He also wants to increase my income so that the offset is larger.

A correction to my original post, he makes six figures. He wants to reduce his income because he doesn't want to pay the table amount at his income level.