Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trying to Find a Better Way (Child support)

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

  • Trying to Find a Better Way (Child support)

    As some of you may know I have been doing a lot of research into the Support Tables. And to no one's surprise... They Suck. They don't do what they are supposed to, and they can impoverishment a support payer. They don't respect the actual costs of the children, the actual money available to the the family, the minimum needs of the separated Family or who is absorbing the costs.

    Not that it looks like any of us can do anything about it right now, but I think I've found a better way. (I attached a spread sheet to play around with at the bottom if you don't want to read my rational).

    Here are the premises and rational I used to approach the problem of support for our children:

    1) Parents should not have to pay support while under the poverty line.
    If they can't support themselves it is pretty damn hard to support a child. While it is each parents responsibility to get the support for themselves (ie no extra support paid to get a parent up to or above the poverty line) they will not be responsible for the costs of the child while they are "poor".

    In Canada we have an index called the "Lower Income Cut Off" or LICO this is the amount of money that it is assumed to be needed to Support yourself with your basic needs. I used numbers published from StatsCan for 2010 in my support calculator.

    Only income above the LICO is considered for the support of the children.

    2) The basic needs of the children must be met.
    All available funds from the parents will be directed to the children through support until the children's basic needs have been met.

    The LICO numbers are given for different Family sizes (1 thorugh "7 or more").

    The Basic needs of the children are assumed to be the LICO for a single parent home - The LICO for an individual.
    3) Costs of the children should be based on actual available funds.
    Only Income above the LICO from both parents will be considered when calculating support.

    When estimating the Costs of the Children I used the following Formula:

    Code:
    (Equivalence Scale of the Single Parent Family) - (Equivalence scale of an individual)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Equivalence Scale of the Single Parent Family) + (Equivalence scale of an individual)
    This gave me a percentage of the available funds that are attributed to be costs of the children based on the number of children in a family

    4) Equivalence scale must be appropriate
    The ratios between the published LICO numbers give a good indication of how these costs should be estimated, and that is what I used.

    5) Apportioning Support should be based on Access and Income
    I used what I saw in the Australian support system which was Access % - Income %. A negative number means you have to pay support, a positive number means you receive support. Then you multiply the new percentage by the Amount that is being directed to the children, and this gives you the yearly support amount.

    6) New children in each household must be supported as well.
    The adjustment has a very minimal affect on the Support amounts, but there is a LICO amount calculated for each additional child in the new household and the Costs percentage is adjusted slightly to account for the other children that need to be supported.



    You can still get some extreme support amounts, but that is usually where the family income is quite low and all available funds above the LICO are being used for the children and could theoretically bring a paying parent down to (but never below) the Poverty line.


    Let me know what you think. The Sheet is protected, but if you want to see my Excel stupidity the password to unprotect it is 0000.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by SingingDad; 03-09-2013, 01:50 AM.

  • #2
    I am not involved in child support issues (thank goodness) but I found your proposal to be quite thought provoking. I wonder about the "New children in each household..." though, as I would tend to think that child support would be relative to only the children being supported. To put it simply, people have to think carefully about bringing children into the world if they can't afford to support the ones they already have. Before people jump to have blended families they should consider the reality of the impact on their current finances, rather than what they "hope" to give or receive. It also might be a kind of double-dipping perhaps?

    Comment


    • #3
      The new children consideration has little effect on the amount of support paid unless you are at very low or very high income levels collectively. The adjustment for new children ensures that a parent is allotted a basic needs amount to keep that new child above the poverty line, and has a very slight adjustment in the "Costs of the Children" to account for some of the spending on the new child. I even took into consideration that 1/2 of the basic needs amount and 1/2 costs for the new child would be the responsibility of (presumably) another adult living in the family.

      Comment


      • #4
        And thanks for responding...

        Comment


        • #5
          I have not checked out your math regarding your support model. I'd be interested to see some specific examples of the tables vs your method.

          Personally as a mid to high income family, I find the table amounts to be reasonable (when access is 0% by the the NCP).

          I agree with the idea that all children of the payor need to be considered.

          I agree that access costs for children should be considered when access is less than 40%. I think the easiest is to base it on overnights.

          If they can't support themselves it is pretty damn hard to support a child. While it is each parents responsibility to get the support for themselves (ie no extra support paid to get a parent up to or above the poverty line) they will not be responsible for the costs of the child while they are "poor".
          This does not sound right to me. If both parents are 'poor', the child is not entitle to support from both parents? I disagree. Children are not to be taken care of with whatever is left over after a parent takes care of themselves. Rather it should be the other way around.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by billm View Post
            This does not sound right to me. If both parents are 'poor', the child is not entitle to support from both parents? I disagree. Children are not to be taken care of with whatever is left over after a parent takes care of themselves. Rather it should be the other way around.
            If both parents are poor then maybe they should make some better choices in life, like getting a better job, another job or whatever. Or unless they can support the child, dont have one or more.

            Who ends up supporting the child? The CP is stuck with all the expenses while the NCP gets off scot free??

            I think the whole poverty aspect should be taken out, kids need support from both parents.

            Comment


            • #7
              Quote by billm "Children are not to be taken care of with whatever is left over after a parent takes care of themselves. Rather it should be the other way around."

              ^ EXACTLY ^

              Comment


              • #8
                EDIT: Now that I have looked at some of this. I'm going to adjust somethings. The "Flat rate below" creates potentially really high support amounts at lower/mid range incomes.

                The increase in the basic personal amount ($10820 to $19496) doesn't change support levels that much especially in 100% access situations. In fact in 100% situations (All income from one parent, and that parent has no access) That parent frequently pays more in this system.

                With the premise that the children's basic needs get taken care of first it creates a "flat rate" of support that is needed for a range of incomes.

                Once the basic needs have been taken care of, then the formula equalizes standard of living.
                Last edited by SingingDad; 03-09-2013, 03:46 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hadenough View Post
                  Quote by billm "Children are not to be taken care of with whatever is left over after a parent takes care of themselves. Rather it should be the other way around."

                  ^ EXACTLY ^
                  And that would still be true. A parent would still spend money on their children when they were in their care (they would have to). My point is that requiring a support payment that pushes an individual further below the poverty line is not reasonable.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ok Final Version. Unfortunately I seem to have lost my ability to edit my posts.

                    I smoothed out the changes between Low-Mid-High Income ranges and Simplified the Support calculator (also took out the extra kids part).

                    The situation that is shown when you open the file is one that highlights one of the main differences between the current Method for Child Support and the what I am suggesting.

                    Right now a Low income parent with minimal access is still required to pay support even though they are below the poverty line. In the method I am suggesting That low income parent actually receives support from the higher income Parent who has most of the access. Not a lot, but enough to make a difference in the child's visits with that parent.
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by billm View Post
                      I have not checked out your math regarding your support model. I'd be interested to see some specific examples of the tables vs your method.

                      Personally as a mid to high income family, I find the table amounts to be reasonable (when access is 0% by the the NCP).

                      I agree with the idea that all children of the payor need to be considered.

                      I agree that access costs for children should be considered when access is less than 40%. I think the easiest is to base it on overnights.
                      Because my method takes into account the money actually available to the children the only amounts that approach (and sometimes surpass) the current table amounts are those where the CP has low income and the NCP has High Income and little access.

                      I took out the extra children adjustment in the 2nd Version i posted, but only to keep the calculator relatively simple.



                      Originally posted by billm View Post
                      This does not sound right to me. If both parents are 'poor', the child is not entitle to support from both parents? I disagree. Children are not to be taken care of with whatever is left over after a parent takes care of themselves. Rather it should be the other way around.
                      The Low income cu-off is the amount an individual needs support them selves with just the basics. Nothing more. $19,496 pre-tax dollars doesn't leave room for anything above the bare necessities. I'll agree to disagree on this point.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        child support is based on the gross income because kids come first. live within your means.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by wannabehappy1978 View Post
                          child support is based on the gross income because kids come first. live within your means.
                          Good observation and often disregarded by the parent complaining about the amount of money being paid and often the parent requesting increases or unreasonable amounts of child support.

                          One of the challenges I find that many people have with child support is not that they couldn't pay it...

                          There is a common pattern of behaviour to those who lament about child support payments making them destitute. I am not saying this pattern of behaviour fits all people who take issue with child support.

                          Basically, it is the accumulated debt from a protracted legal dispute that brings about many people's complaints about child support being inappropriate or unfair.

                          The common pattern I see evolve (personal observations):

                          (Note this is a list, has no order of operation, just a set of different factors I see in case law often.)

                          - Parent denies actually being a parent to the child.
                          - Parent fails to make full and frank financial disclosure in accordance with Rule 13. (Often deceptive about their income to the courts.)
                          - Parent litigates matters for years.
                          - Parent has numerous costs awards against them.
                          - Parent is in default due to legal costs (cost of their own lawyer and often costs awards against them)
                          - Parent often appeals decisions of the court and accumulates more debt.
                          - Parent makes poor financial decisions in general often purchasing luxury items rather than paying debts (costs awards) and child support.
                          - Parent often doesn't pay child support and has large arrears.
                          - Parent often demonstrates a similar pattern of behaviour as a "freeman" (OCPA) litigant.

                          The above list is just a general set of observations from my review of case law. The list isn't ordered, nor is is representative of the total sum of patterns of behaviour. The general gist of what I have seen is that the parent often makes poor decisions and have accumulated a large debt resulting from their own personal conduct that has nothing to do with child support. Their debt accumulated from lifestyle decisions and bad faith conduct before the courts (which results in debt) often causes their financial problems and not the paying of child support in general.

                          Basically, it is a pattern of "penny wise pound foolish" but, with a dash of poor decision making that leads them to a large debt that then impacts their life style because child support has to be paid before a creditor can collect on their debt. After child support is paid and the creditors collect their money, there is nothing left over for the parent with the complaint.

                          Many people who are unable to make child support payments need only evaluate their debt situation. CS is based on gross income. Not gross income less the massive debt they have accumulated in legal matters or in poor life decisions to purchase luxury items or trying to maintain a life style they can no longer afford.

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Interesting method of estimating support.

                            I ran my situation through and found that my support dropped almost by half; For 1 child:

                            Dad = 25% access, 63k income.
                            Mom = 75% access, 0k income.

                            Support went from $577 down to $294.

                            I believe that the $294 is a much more reasonable value for the "actual costs" associated with having one child. After the cost of having a room for him, I do not believe one 6 year old uses $400 in food/gas/clothes, as the current guidelines would suggest.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I punched in my numbers just to see and they are bang on with what I pay; we have 50/50 shared; we use the pro-rated set-off formula to calculate our support amounts; this method was agreed upon because it is the most fair and reasonable formula given our situation; my ex voluntarily reduces her hours at work and in turn her income even though she has cs obligations; this method satisfied our access arrangement and her choice regarding work hours; and it negates the financial burden placed upon me by her choices.
                              Last edited by first timer; 06-19-2013, 09:11 AM.

                              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