Hi everyone,
I'm new here and will probably talking your ear off on a number of subjects in no time, but I wanted to bring forward something I found on the Department of Justice Web Site. It's a publication from 1997 showing how the table amounts for child support are derived.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-...7_1/1997_1.pdf
It also lists two references on how the formula was developed, but they are not on the website. I have sent an email to them asking for the documents and will pass them on when and if I get them.
The table amounts changed this year, but I was told that the same formula was used to obtain the numbers.
I have some major issues with some of the presumptions that were made while determining these values. The main one is highlighted by this quote:
"The following model, and the mathematical equation derived from it, makes the technical assumption that the household of the paying parent has one member: the paying parent. The receiving parent is also assumed to be single; the household of the receiving parent is made up of one parent and all the children of the marriage."
While this works in only the smallest of cases, those where one parent has the children all the time and only the other has no contact or only brief non-overnight access, it doesn't respect the actual living arrangements of the children.
Example: One parent has the children most of the time (70-30). The paying parent is paying the full table amount which assumes they have no expenses relating to the upbringing of the child. But the reality is that the paying parent still has to maintain a home capable of housing the children, likely has the children in activities during their parenting time, school supplies, clothing food and other support items which all cost money. While the costs incurred by the parent with majority of the access time is lessened by the time the children spend with the other.
While one parent may still have the majority of the child costs the formula doesn't acknowledge the reality for the paying parent until access time reaches 60-40, and even then the table doesn't accurately address certain situations (ex: one parent with no or very little income).
Food for thought. I'm thinking of bringing this up to both my MP and MPP to see what their position on this is. I also have the federal guidelines for making a petition so that it would be read in during a parliamentary session.
Anyone else have any ideas of raising this issue with the hopes of getting some change?
I'm new here and will probably talking your ear off on a number of subjects in no time, but I wanted to bring forward something I found on the Department of Justice Web Site. It's a publication from 1997 showing how the table amounts for child support are derived.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-...7_1/1997_1.pdf
It also lists two references on how the formula was developed, but they are not on the website. I have sent an email to them asking for the documents and will pass them on when and if I get them.
The table amounts changed this year, but I was told that the same formula was used to obtain the numbers.
I have some major issues with some of the presumptions that were made while determining these values. The main one is highlighted by this quote:
"The following model, and the mathematical equation derived from it, makes the technical assumption that the household of the paying parent has one member: the paying parent. The receiving parent is also assumed to be single; the household of the receiving parent is made up of one parent and all the children of the marriage."
While this works in only the smallest of cases, those where one parent has the children all the time and only the other has no contact or only brief non-overnight access, it doesn't respect the actual living arrangements of the children.
Example: One parent has the children most of the time (70-30). The paying parent is paying the full table amount which assumes they have no expenses relating to the upbringing of the child. But the reality is that the paying parent still has to maintain a home capable of housing the children, likely has the children in activities during their parenting time, school supplies, clothing food and other support items which all cost money. While the costs incurred by the parent with majority of the access time is lessened by the time the children spend with the other.
While one parent may still have the majority of the child costs the formula doesn't acknowledge the reality for the paying parent until access time reaches 60-40, and even then the table doesn't accurately address certain situations (ex: one parent with no or very little income).
Food for thought. I'm thinking of bringing this up to both my MP and MPP to see what their position on this is. I also have the federal guidelines for making a petition so that it would be read in during a parliamentary session.
Anyone else have any ideas of raising this issue with the hopes of getting some change?
Comment