Parent who should be paying CS isn't working - use spouse's income?

[lashby]

If the parent who is supposed to pay child support is not working but their spouse (common law) is, will the spouse's income be used to calculate child support? Or will no child support have to be paid?

[red6419]

in short: no.

You would have to impute an income. Look this up on the site - there's lots of information.

[FightingForFamily]

It's not the step parents job to send you money to support someone else's child.

Depending on the reason for the underemployment of the former spouse, imputing an income may be an option, but isn't a guarantee. You can't get blood from a stone after all.

[blinkandimgone]

See your other thread:

http://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/f...42/#post172075

"A spouse's income would only come into play if there is a claim for undue hardship."

[Rioe]

An ex who isn't working doesn't get away with not paying child support. A parent should support their child to the best of their ability. The appropriate thing to do here is to have your ex imputed with an income. This means that the CS obligation will be determined as if there was employment of X salary. That might be full-time minimum wage, or it might be higher if they have a good education and employment history. It may be less if they are doing something productive like going to school full-time for a justifiable career change.

If your ex quit their job when they became common-law with someone else who now provides the family income, then have them imputed with the income they previously earned. Yes, the money will ultimately come from the spouse, but it isn't calculated based on the spouse's income because it's your ex's obligation.

[Links17]

I have been theorizing on this issue and in Quebec I can see a jurisprudential logic to imputing income based on the SPOUSE'S income.

For example: let's say ex-wife remarries a doctor and becomes a SAHM. She is now being supported by her husband who makes 300k/yr.

In other cases if a privileged son is supported his son the judges have used that 3rd party support as income and I see no reason why the same logic can't be applied to a spouse. I would even argue that it should be 50% of the spouse's revenue if the parent is purposefully unememployed and perform household duties (i:e: a partner in the economic union of marriage)

[nogoingback]

I have been theorizing on this issue and in Quebec I can see a jurisprudential logic to imputing income based on the SPOUSE'S income.

For example: let's say ex-wife remarries a doctor and becomes a SAHM. She is now being supported by her husband who makes 300k/yr.

In other cases if a privileged son is supported his son the judges have used that 3rd party support as income and I see no reason why the same logic can't be applied to a spouse. I would even argue that it should be 50% of the spouse's revenue if the parent is purposefully unememployed and perform household duties (i:e: a partner in the economic union of marriage)

I wonder if the same logic can be applied to spousal support: if spousal support is up for review, can an ex-spouse's new common law relationship be used to establish household income, and therefore be used to reduce the SS I pay? I am in a situation where I essentially pay my ex's rent. She now benefits from having her new common law spouse living with her and even working out of the house. His "silent" contribution to the household income/rent/etc. should have an impact on SS in my view. I'm not opposed to her re-partnering, but I am opposed to having to support him indirectly, while she conveniently stays out of the work force. Thoughts?

[arabian]

I'd have no problem with assessing the "total family income" in determining SS. My ex puts most of his income through his g/f. Not a damn thing I can do about it. It's so blatant. She never worked a day in her life but now shows substantial income. Crooks.

Only time they look at total family income is when a person files a motion claiming 'undue hardship' as far as I know.

[childfocused]

This has to be a joke.....the original post that is, surely? You want to introduce into the equation the earnings of an ex' allegedly "common law" partner? This is entitlement gone mad i.e. expecting a 3rd party to help raise your child

Am guessing you have it with good authority that they are indeed "common law"?

If this ever happens, it could set a bad precedent where people won't even want anything to do with someone that has kids....you think it's bad enough as it is now, it can only get worse.

If we are to accept this rationale, does that mean a person on SS now living with someone else, should have their SS terminated the moment they shack up with someone else?

People that have problem collecting CS from the biological parent, should STOP having kids period.

[nogoingback]

I'd have no problem with assessing the "total family income" in determining SS. My ex puts most of his income through his g/f. Not a damn thing I can do about it. It's so blatant. She never worked a day in her life but now shows substantial income. Crooks.

Only time they look at total family income is when a person files a motion claiming 'undue hardship' as far as I know.

When filing a motion to change, form 15A (Change of Info) has a box to check off if ex "is living in a spousal relationship", though it is not clear to me for what purpose, and no financial info for the new spouse is requested.

[Rioe]

I wonder if the same logic can be applied to spousal support: if spousal support is up for review, can an ex-spouse's new common law relationship be used to establish household income, and therefore be used to reduce the SS I pay? I am in a situation where I essentially pay my ex's rent. She now benefits from having her new common law spouse living with her and even working out of the house. His "silent" contribution to the household income/rent/etc. should have an impact on SS in my view. I'm not opposed to her re-partnering, but I am opposed to having to support him indirectly, while she conveniently stays out of the work force. Thoughts?

I wonder if there's some way to have his half of the rent and household expenses credited to her as her 'income.'

Sort of like if she was renting a room out.

[nogoingback]

I wonder if there's some way to have his half of the rent and household expenses credited to her as her 'income.'

Sort of like if she was renting a room out.

This is what I plan to attempt. Incidentally, she has also rented out (sublet) a bed room to another tenant, but refuses to acknowledge this.

[Links17]

In Quebec when people are living off spousal support and they shack up the judge DOES consider that the recipient now has reduced costs because her new partner should pay at least half the costs of the home etc...

In your case, it depends on the support etc... you should read the SSAG about the impact of remarriage and repartnering. In short it depends on a few things:

-You means,
-Her needs
-Is your support compensatory or non-comp
-Is he rich
-Is the relationship stable
-age, job prospecte etc...
-Children etc...

In short repartnerting/living with somebody is often grounds for revaluation (i.e: change in circumstances) but it doesn't guarantee ending spousal support.

Generally, spousal support after a long term marriage doesn't end due to repartnering. In short-term marriages it might end sooner...



In Canada, living with somebody in common law is ocnsidered an "economic partnership" which is the basis of spousal support.

This means that even if one person earns all the money and the other just spends it - they are entitled each to half the earnings. If recipient chooses to continue to be unemployed on the basis of a spouse's income to the detriment of her biological children then since she is a recipient of income (via economic partnership) the amounts she lives off of should be considered for CS.

This WILL never work though because - it will kill the marriage market for many low income single mothers and remarriage is considered economically important for them since it reduces pressure on government coffers.

[Links17]

I finally found a case where a woman was working, left the kids with the husband, eventually moved in with a guy who she claims gives her 400$/week + housing etc.... - the judge used that amount (including the fact it is "tax-free" to determine the child support owed. Its in french and Quebec, but still....

[MS Mom]

I have to say this "family income" method that is ingrained in all eligibility requirements is totally contrary to child support payments. CRA looks at the "unit" or "household income" and taxes/provides benefits accordingly. Yet this "unit" doesn't exist when Child Support is considered - only the individual. It's confusing.