Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DivorceMate and The Federal Child Support Guidelines Step-by-Step

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

  • #16
    Hi OrleansLawyer,
    Your analysis makes the math work, but I find it a bit of a jump to say that each parent is responsible for 2 x table values. As it is, table values for 2 children are almost 20% gross. I haven't dug into the metrics that were used in the generation of those tables, since that is probably a battle beyond what I'm ready to fight. The rates seem very high and not at all representative of what we portioned as a family unit, but again, not ready for that fight.

    Comment


    • #17
      I understand your point, but I've never seen this argument on canlii. I'd approach it by arguing for a variance to the std offset, and provide estimated budgets for each household that illustrate your point, but WITHOUT making it into a math equation that challenges the guidelines.

      E.g.
      Her housing, clothing, food, transport etc costs (specific to child) sum to x/mo.
      Her income = 50k, which yields $400/mo cs, plus your $550 cs offset, giving $950 to cover costs of x.

      Then your child-specific costs = y. Your income = 100k which yields $950 cs, of which you keep $400. Leaving you $400 to cover costs of y. Than add some particular-to-you reasons why your overall living costs are larger than in usual if you can eg also looking after aged parent, unexpected large house repair costs.

      Then request an adjustment of $250 to ensure both households can cover their costs.
      Last edited by dinkyface; 11-03-2016, 04:56 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        See dinky, that's what I really don't understand. When I read the csg I don't see the half offset as a challenge to the guidelines. In fact the how to guide almost encourages proposing alternate solutions. Being new to this it just seems foreign that something so perverted is held up as the go to solution.

        Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • #19
          Yup. Makes no sense to me either.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by YGTBFJ View Post
            I'm just an Engineer, Not a Lawyer. So, the case pointed out in the previous thread:

            Do I just take to this to the Judge? How do I leverage this to make people understand half offset is a fair solution?
            You are before a mediator. My recommendation would be to take it to the mediator and ask the mediator to explain why this posted case law is not applicable to the matter at hand. If you truly have a crappy mediator then they will cave on the case law or they will provide a crappy response.

            Ultimately, you are before a mediator. The only way anything can be resolved is if you consent to the agreement. If you don't agree then the matter will have to either go to arbitration or to court to be ordered.

            Note: Going to court may ultimately mean that any money you would pay in CS will just get payed out in legal costs.

            Your CS is 456 a month on "shared' (offset) calculation. You want it to be "half" that or 228.

            If the child is 8 years old you have say 15 years of CS to pay. (Just guessing.) that is 180 months of CS.

            180 months @ 456 = 82,080
            180 months @ 228 = 41,040

            Court costs about 50,000 - 65,000 roughly. (Again, this is an average I have come up with for complex and disputed matters.)

            So, you would be paying a lawyer 50,000 to save you NOTHING.

            I would recommend you agree to the typical offset and avoid wasting money on legals.

            I would also recommend you read this:

            When Math People and Feelings People Negotiate - High Conflict Institute

            You are clearly a "math" person. I would read the "lessons learned" section of the article if I were you.

            Good Luck!
            Tayken

            Comment


            • #21
              Thanks Tayken, That's some solid practical advice. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by YGTBFJ View Post
                Thanks Tayken, That's some solid practical advice. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
                The other thing I forgot to mention is the risk side of going to court.

                Say you send 50,000 and fail and are ordered to pay the other party's costs at 25,000 or even 50,000. You are out 125,000 or 200,000 to try and save 40,000. The risk isn't worth taking in most matters... Especially just to be "right".

                Often family law reflects the complexity of mathcore heavy metal song where you really are dealing with impossibility of calculating infinity with a high probability of getting 43% burnt with what you do. Family law is often a sugar coated sour experience.
                Last edited by Tayken; 11-04-2016, 12:39 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Your analysis makes the math work, but I find it a bit of a jump to say that each parent is responsible for 2 x table values. As it is, table values for 2 children are almost 20% gross. I haven't dug into the metrics that were used in the generation of those tables, since that is probably a battle beyond what I'm ready to fight. The rates seem very high and not at all representative of what we portioned as a family unit, but again, not ready for that fight.
                  This is because there are higher costs to duplication - and the children "get paid" before the parents. It is designed to ensure transfer of wealth from the higher earning household to the lesser earning household.

                  A different argument is: "That is generally how it is done at court, attempting to fight it will probably result in losing and thus the other side will not agree".

                  Tayken's advice given above and earlier in the thread is excellent and, as always, should be considered before charging forwards.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi orleasnlawyer, this thread is about understanding the law and rationalizing it against a logical approach to fundamental principles and the vast chasm in between. Your position championing 2x table values is not represented in either camp. If that is what you are telling your clients then I'm gobsmacked to another level. I supposed this could also just be a sleazy tactic to bully your opponents and create confusion on what should be painfully obvious discussion. Just to note, I did give a public shout out to tayken. I appreciate his practical advice.

                    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      We are fortunate that OrleansLawyer contributes to this forum.

                      OrleansLawyer is neither "sleazy" nor a "bully."

                      Inflammatory remarks about another poster are totally inappropriate and uncalled for.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        My rebuttal was about the content, not the person. I'm sure there is no one posting here that has anything to gain from protecting the status quo.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The sooner you can stop obsessing over the details (math) of the situation and just accept the realities of the situation the sooner you can move on with your life OP.

                          You are not going to change the systemic issues within family law.

                          Penny wise pound foolish. -- Don't fall into this trap.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                            This is your mistake.

                            Parent A has a responsibility of $935 - and so contributes $935 in their own household, and $935 to Parent B's household.

                            Parent B has a responsibility of $479 - and so contributes $479 to their own household, and $479 to Parent A's household.
                            Generally, if I say something and Orleans disagrees, then I am wrong. In this case though, Orleans is incorrect. The table values represent the money that a non-custodial parent would spend if they did not spend a single penny on the child. Officially, non-custodial parents do not spend money on their child. The table values represent the entire contribution (excluding S7 of course) of a NCP to their child. It does not represent half the amount that they spend, where half goes to CP and the other half stays with NCP.

                            This is kinda scary, because Orleans is a smart guy, and for him to have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the tables makes me aware that there is no way judges will ever overturn offset.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              If that is what you are telling your clients
                              DISCLAIMER:
                              Everything said in this, and any other, message is not intended to be taken as legal advice. I do not hold myself out to be a lawyer, adult or literate. Any resemblance this or any other message may have to legal advice or common sense is entirely coincidental. This message was generated through the combination of a monkey hitting a keyboard with a rock and advanced spell check software.

                              this thread is about understanding the law and rationalizing it against a logical approach to fundamental principles
                              Here is practical advice then:
                              If you go to court, the offset table amounts are probably what will come out. If the payor's income is significantly higher then there is a stronger argument that the recipient should receive greater than offset (ie, closer to full guideline support) than to reduce the payor's burden.

                              Why? Because fairness to the parents is of lesser import than the financial security of the children. Better the payor parent is disgruntled than the children have a (more) significant change in standard of living between households.

                              If the recipient has re-partnered to someone wealthy than the payor can use the same argument to justify less than offset support.

                              Why does the result at court matter if the math is "wrong"? Because all negotiations must consider what will happen if they break down. If you offer me $500 and I want $800, and I know that I will get $800 at court, I do not have any incentive to accept your $500.

                              In this case though, Orleans is incorrect.
                              On re-reading my previous post, and reading yours, I must agree that my logic was flawed.

                              The reasoning I used is what gets thrown into the SSAG for the custodial payor formula.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Thank you OrleansLawyer. I appreciate your levity and honesty. I apologise for letting my frustration get the better me.

                                Thank you everyone for your contributions.

                                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