Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support - both incomes over $150k

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Child Support - both incomes over $150k

    I've been searching and searching but can't seem to find the answer to this or any precedents.

    Here is the situation:

    Shared custody (50/50)
    No Spousal support

    Both parties make over $150k. Each parties salary/bonus is entered into the tables and the amounts are subtracted from each other to arrive at the support number.

    Per that calculation, one spouse makes $260k the other makes $388k

    My question is, at income levels this high and under a shared custody arrangement, why would the higher income spouse pay the "lower" income spouse? Is there any precedent to say that if both are over $150k the Child Support argument - and especially the table amounts - are inapplicable?

  • #2
    Originally posted by strange_brew View Post
    I've been searching and searching but can't seem to find the answer to this or any precedents.

    Here is the situation:

    Shared custody (50/50)
    No Spousal support

    Both parties make over $150k. Each parties salary/bonus is entered into the tables and the amounts are subtracted from each other to arrive at the support number.

    Per that calculation, one spouse makes $260k the other makes $388k

    My question is, at income levels this high and under a shared custody arrangement, why would the higher income spouse pay the "lower" income spouse? Is there any precedent to say that if both are over $150k the Child Support argument - and especially the table amounts - are inapplicable?
    Because presumably the standard of living of the children will be impacted. Agreed at 50/50, not by much.

    Comment


    • #3
      Really you can agree on anything you want, but the support guidelines are there for a reason. If both parties are in agreement then sure, don't exchange the money, however if one doesn't agree, the higher earner has no choice.

      You could easily argue the other way and say one made $26K and the other made $28K, is it worth exchanging $135 a month for? In your case $950 is being exchanged a month and while both parties earn a very high income, that also means the standard of living is higher in those households. When one is making $388/year or $32300 a month, exchanging $950 a month, hardly seems like anything.

      Comment


      • #4
        Actually it works out to $1470 per month, which to me is patently ridiculous. She is a VP at a Bank for crying out loud! And I know the money is not going to benefit the kids whatsoever, only go into her savings account, which is clearly not the purpose.

        I understand that we could agree on something else, but what i'm wondering is if this is worth pushing to court? I would have thought a reasonable person would look at this and say, "why on earth does a person making $260k per year and sharing custody need child support??"

        Comment


        • #5
          In Quebec the guidelines are fixed exactly for this issue.

          She can now get the maserati she always wanted...

          You can try going to court and bringing up a reverse contelli argument - you know, if you have the money you should fight it for the people who come after you. All you need is one judgement or appeal judgement to give other cases the jurisprudence need to end ridiculous practices, with persistence it happens.

          Spousal support took so many cases to get to where it is now, and ppl fought for things that were not in jurisprudence back then - you can try to!

          Good Luck
          Last edited by Links17; 02-17-2014, 12:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            It is not just ridiculous from her that she is crying for $1400 with her salary, it is equally ridiculous from you to argue over that or want to go to court.

            btw.: is she already of POF?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BitHunter View Post
              It is not just ridiculous from her that she is crying for $1400 with her salary, it is equally ridiculous from you to argue over that or want to go to court.

              btw.: is she already of POF?
              It is absolutely NOT about the money for me, its the principle. Child support should go to raising the kids and giving them the same standard of living with both parents. She doesn't need an extra $1500 to do that - she makes more than enough money now. She lives in a nicer house and she drives a nicer car. This money will be used to pad her savings.

              What is POF?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                In Quebec the guidelines are fixed exactly for this issue.

                She can now get the maserati she always wanted...

                You can try going to court and bringing up a reverse contelli argument - you know, if you have the money you should fight it for the people who come after you. All you need is one judgement or appeal judgement to give other cases the jurisprudence need to end ridiculous practices, with persistence it happens.

                Spousal support took so many cases to get to where it is now, and ppl fought for things that were not in jurisprudence back then - you can try to!

                Good Luck
                There certainly doesn't seem to be much in the way of case law that I can find with this kind of circumstance. Maybe its worth fighting to help others out down the road. Child Support should be for the kids. If this money were going into a Trust fund that she couldn't touch, then I would be ok with it. Again, this is about principle. I know the money won't be used for the kids.

                Comment


                • #9
                  How do you know she is not using it for the kids? How do you know when she gets your CS, she isn't paying some of the mortgage or some of the other bills?

                  Are you assuming that because she makes a high income that you should not have to pay CS and that she should be responsible for more than her fair share of costs?

                  Seeing as you are paying her, you are the one to make the $388K a year... you sound very foolish to be trying to bring this to court. Even at $1400 a month you still have over $30,000 gross left over a month. That $1400 can't hurt you that much can it?

                  If you want to talk about principle, you should be supporting your children and not complaining about doing so.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    -He isn't suggesting not paying - he suggested a trust.

                    Speaking about paying a mortgage - that ultimately benefits the custodial parent doesn't it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It also benefits the child by having a roof over their head.

                      Why should the mother have to put her CS in a trust and use her own money to support the child all the time? That $1400 gets split up to go to whatever bills, Mom then has her $1400 to spend on what she wishes. What the OP is suggesting is that his CS should not be used for the children, it should go in trust and that Mom should therefore spend more of her money on the child.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                        -He isn't suggesting not paying - he suggested a trust.

                        Speaking about paying a mortgage - that ultimately benefits the custodial parent doesn't it?
                        Exactly.

                        Also, remember, this is not a custodial arrangement. This is fully shared custody 50/50. And Extraordinary expenses are already split 60/40. That only leaves the day to day. My argument is that for someone making $260k, the cost of monthly expenses is such a low percentage of income that its essentially irrelevant. I know because I have the kids 50% of the time.

                        That leaves standard of living. We live in the same neighbourhood and she lives in a nicer house, drives a nicer car and goes on exotic vacations with the kids once or twice a year. I don't mind paying but it should be about equalizing the experience of the kids and the cost burden on each of us.

                        At my income level I would agree that I should subsidize somewhat, but not $1500 per month. It just doesn't make logical sense.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Based on rough calculations, even with $1470 CS paid, you are still bringing in close to $8k a month more than she is. The only reason you don't have a nicer house and car than she does must therefore be different financial prioritizing.

                          Don't think of it as her living in a nicer house. Think of it as your children living in a nicer house half the time. Just because the cheque itself goes into a savings account doesn't mean that she isn't spending her own CS amount plus $1470 on expenses related to the children every month.

                          All that said, I do agree that pure offset is not the best system, and it shows up vividly in a high income situation such as yours.

                          Try arguing that the half-offset method should be used. Think of it as both parents putting their CS amounts, proportional to income, in a pool that supports the children, and drawing from it proportional to their access. For you, that would be 50-50, or you paying her $735 a month, which might feel fairer to you.

                          As noted, someone like you with the resources to take this to court and set a precedent for the half-offset system could be a great help to others in the future. You know, the people who don't even make $8k a month.

                          Oh, and POF is Plenty of Fish, an online dating website.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A bit more context. Until very recently (last 18 months) our incomes were very close. In fact, they have been within $20-30k of each other for the past 7 years or so and our careers have both blossomed significantly in the past ~3 years (I actually worked from home for a long period of time to allow her to pursue her career).

                            I had a really good year last year so my CS more than doubled, but the circumstances could reverse in the future. So this is not about me trying to be selfish and save myself some money. I just don't think $1500 makes sense, and I would feel the same way if the roles were reversed.

                            Is there some precedent for half-offset? I think that makes a lot of sense and $735 a month feels much more in line with reality.

                            I had actually come up with a formula that, for every $25k of difference in our income, we pay the other $100 per month. That also passed the "sniff test" for me and would account for dramatically higher incomes in the future (unlikely but who knows).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think people don't understand that ex spouses don't want money "earmarked" as "CHILD SUPPORT" to in ANY WAY benefit the ex spouse. Once we get that on lock down a lot of people will be very happy.

                              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