Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Formula that determines child support table amounts

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Formula that determines child support table amounts

    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?

  • #2
    Thats similar to my situation. I have my girls just under the 40% threashold. I have them in swimming and music lessons, I have to feed them, had to buy a new bed for them. They need clothes.

    No help for me.

    Comment


    • #3
      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
      BUT depending on the access, the requirement for a home being suitable is much much less. If you only have the standard EOW screwjob...you can get away with a 1 bedroom apartment in most cases. The min. associated housing cost you can get away with is MUCH less.

      likely has the children in activities during their parenting time
      This would be a section 7 expense in a lot of cases and is split pro rata to income.

      school supplies, clothing
      Covered by CS where full support is paid. Technically the CP is required to provide clothing for the visit.

      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).
      It actually DOES take into consideration those things as long as you understand what CS covers. In those certain situations there are typically other legal remedies. To use your example, where a parent has little to no income, you can have them IMPUTED an income equivalent to what they are capable of making. (even just full time hours/min wage)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by tdog View Post
        Thats similar to my situation. I have my girls just under the 40% threashold. I have them in swimming and music lessons, I have to feed them, had to buy a new bed for them. They need clothes.

        No help for me.
        It's a tough situation, and one that needs to change. The question is how to make this "an election issue" so that politicians who can influence such things will listen.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NBDad View Post
          BUT depending on the access, the requirement for a home being suitable is much much less. If you only have the standard EOW screwjob...you can get away with a 1 bedroom apartment in most cases. The min. associated housing cost you can get away with is MUCH less.



          This would be a section 7 expense in a lot of cases and is split pro rata to income.



          Covered by CS where full support is paid. Technically the CP is required to provide clothing for the visit.



          It actually DOES take into consideration those things as long as you understand what CS covers. In those certain situations there are typically other legal remedies. To use your example, where a parent has little to no income, you can have them IMPUTED an income equivalent to what they are capable of making. (even just full time hours/min wage)
          I respect what you are saying. I guess my situation is different. I have three kids and moving out of my town house for an apartment wouldn't cut it, even though I'm currently sitting in a temporary EOW situation. I also provide clothes for them to keep at my house, pay for activities, food, school supplies and the like.

          My main objection is that the presumption that the paying parent has no costs related to raising the child beyond paying child support.

          Comment


          • #6
            The kicker is that the paying parent *SHOULD* have proportionally less costs than the primary parent. The reality is that this usually is NOT the case, especially if the "primary" parent wants to be stupid about it.

            School supplies are covered by CS...ditto clothes. Activities are generally covered by CS OR fall under section 7 expenses which are separate anyway and split proportionally.

            There are usually several legal avenues that can be taken, however since the court system is SO overburdened right now, that process CAN seem slow.

            Average is 1-3 years to obtain a workable final order. Seems like a long time when you are going through it, but it's really just a small hiccup in the grand scheme of things.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NBDad View Post
              you can get away with a 1 bedroom apartment in most cases.

              Covered by CS where full support is paid. Technically the CP is required to provide clothing for the visit.
              So, i'm expected to sleep in the same bed as two children? What if they were girls? I know, you said "most cases"

              And when you've got a parent who only supplies second hand, faded and ripped clothing? at $900/month in CS?

              Other issue being if the custodial parent makes a ridiculous amount of $$/yr and you make next to nothing, then what? You live in a Van, down by the river. Eating three square meals a day of PB & J?

              I make $60k and I can't remember the last time i was able to afford a steak, let alone McDonalds or new clothes for myself. There is no standard of living for the paying parent, except poverty.

              The tables also do not take geographic location into consideration. The cost of living in a small town can be much different than a large metropolitan center. Then travel expenses blah blah blah...

              Comment


              • #8
                So, i'm expected to sleep in the same bed as two children? What if they were girls? I know, you said "most cases"
                You don't have a couch? Worse case scenario, the two girls share your bed, you sleep on the couch. Or a blow up mattress in the living room.? Roll-away cot? Bed in a bag? Ideal? No. Doable...yep

                And when you've got a parent who only supplies second hand, faded and ripped clothing? at $900/month in CS?
                If the kids are dressed like paupers and aren't being cared for appropriately...there are avenues to take. If they have threadbare clothes in the middle of winter for instance...CAS is a phone call away.

                Get the children's school on board and have them call you if the kids show up with inappropriate clothing. Then you have both record of it AND the teacher's should be making a call to CAS if the pattern repeats itself.

                Teacher's are mandatory reporters. If the kids aren't being taken care of, they are OBLIGATED to call. This is one of the reasons it is SO important to be involved and have a good working relationship with the kids teachers/school.

                Other issue being if the custodial parent makes a ridiculous amount of $$/yr and you make next to nothing, then what? You live in a Van, down by the river. Eating three square meals a day of PB & J?
                Your CS is based on what you make. If you make min. wage, your CS obligation is almost nothing. The more you make, the more you pay. This should be adjusted yearly based on the NOA.

                I make $60k and I can't remember the last time i was able to afford a steak, let alone McDonalds or new clothes for myself. There is no standard of living for the paying parent, except poverty.
                It's about living within your means. If you have a ridiculous amount of debts/etc, then yeah, trying to maintain a standard of living like you enjoyed when you were together with the ex just flat out is going to fail. Car leases? Get rid of them. Credit cards? Chuck em. Go bankrupt, find a 1000 beater of a car and get the bare min. PLPD insurance on it. Drive the hell out of it until it falls apart, then sell it for $150 to a scrapyard. Rinse and repeat for a few years. You can't GET a lease for that cheap. For the days you don't have the kids, get a bus pass. Walk, car pool, etc.

                A car is THE most expensive transportation option you can have. Minimize it's use.

                Learn to budget for food/etc. Coupon/buy in bulk/plan ahead. If my household can feed 12 people off < 1200/month in groceries, there is no reason you can't feed you and a couple of kids EOW.

                Kill the home phone, Get a prepaid cell and buy a card every month for it. You don't need cable. Kill the Internet account. Instead, do you have a neighbor with wifi nearby? Go offer then $25/month to give you their WAP key and whore off them. TV shows are available online, or get netflix for like $8/month. Hell you can hook the laptop to the TV nowadays man.

                The tables also do not take geographic location into consideration. The cost of living in a small town can be much different than a large metropolitan center.
                Again, that's something you would have been dealing with when you were together. There are a number of areas you can move to geographically speaking that still put you in range of the city, but where the cost of living is less. All about finding that balance. Choices and consequences.

                Then travel expenses blah blah blah...
                Unless one of you arbitrarily moved, this should be a shared expense. You do the pick ups to being YOUR time, SHE does the pick ups to END hers.

                It's actually CHEAPER for a parent to take the EOW screw job, pay their support and do the bare minimum. Being involved is MORE expensive. It's also a lot more rewarding, but them's the breaks.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I do agree with much of what you said. I did keep my internet account, and changed my home phone one with netTALK ($40/year), I don't have cable, I borrowed money from a friend to pay off the remaining year on the financing of my car and will drive it until it's dead. I have netflicks and have a digital antenna to get 13 free over the air local channels. I shop in bunches and buy stuff that will keep or I can freeze, and am always looking for deals and coupons. Takes a little more effort but it's doable.

                  My problem with moving is that this house is the only home my kids could remember before my ex did what she did. And to move and leave them with little connection to their friends and community isn't what I see as best.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NBDad View Post
                    It's about living within your means. If you have a ridiculous amount of debts/etc, then yeah, trying to maintain a standard of living like you enjoyed when you were together with the ex just flat out is going to fail. Car leases? Get rid of them. Credit cards? Chuck em. Go bankrupt, find a 1000 beater of a car and get the bare min. PLPD insurance on it. Drive the hell out of it until it falls apart, then sell it for $150 to a scrapyard. Rinse and repeat for a few years. You can't GET a lease for that cheap. For the days you don't have the kids, get a bus pass. Walk, car pool, etc.

                    A car is THE most expensive transportation option you can have. Minimize it's use.
                    Unless one of you arbitrarily moved, this should be a shared expense. You do the pick ups to being YOUR time, SHE does the pick ups to END hers.
                    My ex moved 88k away. I had to wait 2 months for case conf and now 2 months for a motion. 1400k a month isn't doable in a beater. Trust me, i've owned em. My best friend is a car dealer.

                    Originally posted by NBDad View Post
                    Learn to budget for food/etc. Coupon/buy in bulk/plan ahead. If my household can feed 12 people off < 1200/month in groceries, there is no reason you can't feed you and a couple of kids EOW.

                    Kill the home phone, Get a prepaid cell and buy a card every month for it. You don't need cable. Kill the Internet account. Instead, do you have a neighbor with wifi nearby? Go offer then $25/month to give you their WAP key and whore off them. TV shows are available online, or get netflix for like $8/month. Hell you can hook the laptop to the TV nowadays man.
                    $50/month cell plan. No cable. Internet for $34. I live off a $250 food expense, which includes diapers for 2 children and their food. I do own a house, but have a big dog and fix my own and my familiy's cars (offsets the cost of owning an apartment).

                    Originally posted by NBDad View Post
                    It's actually CHEAPER for a parent to take the EOW screw job, pay their support and do the bare minimum. Being involved is MORE expensive. It's also a lot more rewarding, but them's the breaks.
                    Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having children, being a Parent and basically against this whole arguement?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My ex moved 88k away. I had to wait 2 months for case conf and now 2 months for a motion. 1400k a month isn't doable in a beater.
                      If the ex moved, the ex should have done the driving. If the kids are school age and that takes them out of the school zone...HELLO ex parte order to have them returned to the zone of residence. She can't arbitrarily move them without consequence, IF you play it right.

                      And where is 1400km coming from? With EOW you'd do at most...8 trips/month and that assumes you do ALL the driving AND have a day on the off week.

                      So 800-1000km/month That's 12000km/year, which is more than doable in a beater.

                      includes diapers for 2 children
                      *cough* Covered by CS *cough*

                      Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having children, being a Parent and basically against this whole arguement?
                      It's virtually impossible to "be a parent" with the EOW screwjob. Hence why I encourage ANYONE just starting out to push 50-50 from the onset. It's a huge battle to get more time once you allow yourself to get pushed into the nice little box that the ex wants you to sit in.

                      It's more expensive to do 50-50 though. A LOT more expensive. If you struggle with EOW, is the extra couple hundred a month you'd save in offset CS REALLY going to have that significant an impact?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        at 50/50. no offset. She makes exactly the same as I.

                        My lawyer is a bit behind on all the move BS. correction. REALLY FAR OFF. The case conf was already scheduled, arbitrarily moved. The case conf judge told her to move back or she'll be facing me being the custodial parent. 16 trips there and back and 4 trips half way and back.

                        I have EOW and one day a week without any agreement. Only driving she does is meets me half way on the start of her access on weekdays.

                        Without getting into a whole discussion (off topic). She's a HAP, unilaterally moved, stopped driving, denied access and has now reduced access to supervised access, all without justification. She's in for a rude awakening.

                        Diapers are covered by CS? You sure?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Clean View Post
                          Diapers are covered by CS? You sure?
                          C/S covers the basic needs of the child including food, shelter, clothing and utilities associated with housing the child (cable, phone, hydro, water, heat etc). If the child is an infant, diapers are a need, thus diapers covered by c/s.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What he said.

                            As for the rest my ex tried that game. Didn't work out so hot for her. Keep your chin up and keep pushing forward. Took me 10 days to have my kids ordered back, why is your lawyer so behind? Should have jumped all over that.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              i ask myself the same question 100x a day. It's not for lack of effort, support or evidence on my part. It's taken 5 weeks for them to put together a short motion... My lawyer actually thanks me for my organization and promptness.

                              99% of lawyers give them a bad name, right?

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X