Ex won't work and simply wants to live off me

[Berner_Faith]

You make some good points, and on some levels the way the CS tables are work well. particularily once the payor makes a certain amount of money in the first place, well the differnece taken as CS or SS doesn't really hurt them too much. But the closer you live to the poverty line, the more it hurts.

That is very true an even those who are slightly above the poverty line have a very hard time financially. Separation and divorce is very hard financially on most people, but for those who don't understand that some people DO have to live on under $1000 a month... that is the reason Ontario Works does not pay a lot, they pay the bare minimum one needs to survive. At the end of the month, some support payer have to live off of the bare minimum, if they want to earn more, they have to work more, but then that means there is less time with their children, but their CS obligations increase... when does the vicious circle end? Is one better off working the bare minimum, spending max time with their children and once their children are on their feet then seek that maximum paying job? What is really more important? High child support or more time with a parent?

[wretchedotis]

when does the vicious circle end? Is one better off working the bare minimum, spending max time with their children and once their children are on their feet then seek that maximum paying job? What is really more important? High child support or more time with a parent?

That, my dear, is the 10 thousand dollar question.

And it is applicable to both the Custodial Parent and the Non-Custodial parent.

That very sentiment can be argued for both more/less access time and more/less Child Support. Two sides of the same coin.

[wretchedotis]

So, six days a month, he has to pay extra hydro, gas, water and food. He has an extra bedroom therefore a slightly higher rent than if the children never went to his home.

We have the same amount of income for the month. That is what child and spousal support is supposed to do. Even out the playing field so the children's needs can be met.

I want to take exception with the above, specifically.

Six days a month you say, but that doesn't really compute. The expense is there for that side (MALE or FEMALE! I could care less.) each and every day of the month. The cost of 'holding' the property to be used 'part-time' can be shown to actually be more 'costly' than it being used daily. Statistics are great like that.

Living in the EQUAL society we do, why should YOUR lifestyle be subsidized simply because you hae a child with someone more affluent than you?

Maybe the better solution is that the child simply live with the more affluent parent full-time and enjoy the luxury of it all.

On some level, wouldn't that be in 'the best interests of the child'?

Oh wait, but then you'd lose contact with your kid, and have to PAY for that privilge. Welcome to my world.

[Berner_Faith]

That, my dear, is the 10 thousand dollar question.

And it is applicable to both the Custodial Parent and the Non-Custodial parent.

That very sentiment can be argued for both more/less access time and more/less Child Support. Two sides of the same coin.

Absolutely it can go both ways...

When the parents are together, if Parent A works full time and Parent B works part time, it stands to reason that Parent B does more of the child rearing, however at the end of the day, Parent A still comes home and has the opportunity to see their children whenever they want.

When the parties divorce, if Parent A attempts to take a lesser paying job, to ensure they can see their children equally (because they are long longer able to see their children whenever they want), this is often fought tooth and nail because they are under employing themselves. That forces Parent A to either keep the high paying job and work full time, but see their children less, or take a less demanding or part time job and spend an equal amount of time with their children.

The same can be argued for Parent B... if they only worked part time, should they be forced to now seek full time employment and reduce the amount of time they have for their children?

It really is never ending and in my personal opinion, custody/access should always be equal, unless there is an actual reason why (abuse, neglect, etc). I guess the biggest thing that gets me is that it is expected that the children's lives will not change during divorce (hence why CS is very high for those who make a lot of money). The point is, divorce does change lives and the children's lives are going to be changed drastically.

I truly believe in CS and think it is necessary (makes me sick that some don't pay to raise their children), however I also feel that if things are to be equal for the child, the standard of loving in BOTH households must be considered, just like when the couple was together.

In the end, the child(ren) are either the ones who gain or suffer from this all.

[wretchedotis]

Absolutely it can go both ways...

When the parents are together, if Parent A works full time and Parent B works part time, it stands to reason that Parent B does more of the child rearing, however at the end of the day, Parent A still comes home and has the opportunity to see their children whenever they want.

When the parties divorce, if Parent A attempts to take a lesser paying job, to ensure they can see their children equally (because they are long longer able to see their children whenever they want), this is often fought tooth and nail because they are under employing themselves. That forces Parent A to either keep the high paying job and work full time, but see their children less, or take a less demanding or part time job and spend an equal amount of time with their children.

The same can be argued for Parent B... if they only worked part time, should they be forced to now seek full time employment and reduce the amount of time they have for their children?

It really is never ending and in my personal opinion, custody/access should always be equal, unless there is an actual reason why (abuse, neglect, etc). I guess the biggest thing that gets me is that it is expected that the children's lives will not change during divorce (hence why CS is very high for those who make a lot of money). The point is, divorce does change lives and the children's lives are going to be changed drastically.

I truly believe in CS and think it is necessary (makes me sick that some don't pay to raise their children), however I also feel that if things are to be equal for the child, the standard of loving in BOTH households must be considered, just like when the couple was together.

In the end, the child(ren) are either the ones who gain or suffer from this all.

Child Support (the idea) to any reasonable person is simply a given.

But let me be even more radical, and ask just what exactly a child costs?

Imean really. It's not that much. Maybe 300 bucks extra a month.
Before you slam me. I paid the bills, and I know.
The ACTUAL cost isn't that much before inceidentals (all the extra crap like school photo's and trips and stuff).

But those could technically be considered Section 7 i a perfect world - as they are just that 'incedentals'. So that's another argument.

Now given an immense disparity between houshold incomes, perhaps a high CS obligation is ok. I would like to think that any person that was capable of doing so without it hurting them would be happy to give the ex 20K a year ust so she could live in a middle class setting. (and therefore kid would too).

But should one parents standard of living be reduced beause of that?

OK. I'm kinda rambling and maybe not making a great arguement - but I see some very fundemental flaws in the way things are right now.

[wretchedotis]

I really need to buy a new keyboard. Sorry for all the missed key strokes... lol

[Berner_Faith]

I understand what you are saying completely. When you are dealing with relatively low incomes, sometimes even the basic CS causes hardship, when you start getting into the higher incomes, this to me is when CS becomes unreasonable.

I guess I am thinking on my own situation. When bf was with his ex, he made around $30K a year, they both did and they were okay with this. When the factory he worked at closed, he moved for a job, that lasted a year and then ended... he worked at any job he could. I supported him and at times my parents supported us. He started a new career over the summer... we borrowed money from my parents in order for him to be able to afford the training. He has been very successful because of the hard work he has put in, the sacrifices I have made (put furthering my education on hold after my first diploma to get him on his feet) and the financial help we received from my parents. In the end, the children will benefit from all of this, but so will the ex... while during their 7 year marriage he only made $30K, he made that amount in five months with this new job. In a year or two he could be looking at $100K+ in income... his CS obligations are going to be crazy and while it may only cost $300-$500 for all the children's expenses, the ex is going to get way more than that... she is going to directly benefit from the hard work everyone has done. One can only hope that the extra money she will be benefiting from will go towards the children and bettering their lives... but I think in most circumstances, when CS is high, the recipient of that support is often the one who benefits more.

Please don't get me wrong, it saddens me to hear some of the stories the children tell us (recent one was that Mommy used all their change in the piggy bank for her coffee because she has none of her own), hopefully with this increase in CS, she will be able to better support the children. So you are right, her standard of living will increase, as would the children, but the question remains... is it right for everyone's hard work to directly benefit her, when she contributed nothing?

[wretchedotis]

I understand what you are saying completely. When you are dealing with relatively low incomes, sometimes even the basic CS causes hardship, when you start getting into the higher incomes, this to me is when CS becomes unreasonable.

I guess I am thinking on my own situation. When bf was with his ex, he made around $30K a year, they both did and they were okay with this. When the factory he worked at closed, he moved for a job, that lasted a year and then ended... he worked at any job he could. I supported him and at times my parents supported us. He started a new career over the summer... we borrowed money from my parents in order for him to be able to afford the training. He has been very successful because of the hard work he has put in, the sacrifices I have made (put furthering my education on hold after my first diploma to get him on his feet) and the financial help we received from my parents. In the end, the children will benefit from all of this, but so will the ex... while during their 7 year marriage he only made $30K, he made that amount in five months with this new job. In a year or two he could be looking at $100K+ in income... his CS obligations are going to be crazy and while it may only cost $300-$500 for all the children's expenses, the ex is going to get way more than that... she is going to directly benefit from the hard work everyone has done. One can only hope that the extra money she will be benefiting from will go towards the children and bettering their lives... but I think in most circumstances, when CS is high, the recipient of that support is often the one who benefits more.

Please don't get me wrong, it saddens me to hear some of the stories the children tell us (recent one was that Mommy used all their change in the piggy bank for her coffee because she has none of her own), hopefully with this increase in CS, she will be able to better support the children. So you are right, her standard of living will increase, as would the children, but the question remains... is it right for everyone's hard work to directly benefit her, when she contributed nothing?

exactly. She is rewarded because she is the MOM. And only becuase of that.

That works when genders are reversed, too. I guess I should have said 'because she is a PARENT' of the child.

Yes. Obviously the child should see some of that success. But why the eff should the other 'PARENT'???

It's a selfish arguement that is easily shouted down. I'm the first to admit. But the logic is undeniable.

[nogoingback]

I'm paying my ex 1100 in CS and 750 in SS. Married 13.5 years i worked full time she did work from home teaching online but never really earned a salary. I tried to get her to get a real job especially once the kids were in school but she never did... excuse after excuse...

It's now been 17 months since our separation date and of course she hasn't lifted a finger to look for work. Of course I'm paying her enough to live somewhat comfortably and her expenses are minimal as she's also in low income housing. I have no doubt she will never work unless she is made to due to SS ending.

The guidelines gave a range of 6-12 years and we have agreed on an end date of Jan 2018 although the separation agreement has yet to be signed!

She's 39 has a university degree, is computer literate, and I'm sure she could get something if she had to.. heck Timmie's will teach you how to pour coffee if necessary!

My lawyer is telling me the best i can do is just ask her and hope she works because a 'material change in circumstance' doesn't include her sitting at home all day long.

We're pretty much agreed on our separation agreement but I've no idea what i can do to make her work. She is making me 100% financially responsible for both her and our kids which is wrong.

I've no idea what if anything can be done except to suck it up and pay for the next 5 years (45K) lucky me i'll get about 12k back in taxes :-/

I'm at a loss as to what can be done.

There is plenty of case law you can read up on in imputing an income. Here is one of many worth reading. Thomas v. Thomas 2003.
CanLII - 2003 CanLII 64346 (ON SC)
"it makes a mockery of the statutory obligation upon a spouse to provide support for herself to the extent of her capability. There must be a disincentive for those who would sit back and make insufficient efforts to contribute to their own support. The fact that the wife has not made adequate efforts in this regard and has failed to present a plan for her own support, requires the court to impute income, even if some guesswork is needed."

[nogoingback]

In addition to searching the CanLII site for imputing an income, you can search for "intentionally underemployed". This Decker v. Fedorsen case may be helpful: CanLII - 2011 ONCJ 850 (CanLII)

"Ms. Decker was intentionally
under-employed without reasonable explanation and that income should be

imputed to her."

[wretchedotis]

There is plenty of case law you can read up on in imputing an income. Here is one of many worth reading. Thomas v. Thomas 2003.
CanLII - 2003 CanLII 64346 (ON SC)
"it makes a mockery of the statutory obligation upon a spouse to provide support for herself to the extent of her capability. There must be a disincentive for those who would sit back and make insufficient efforts to contribute to their own support. The fact that the wife has not made adequate efforts in this regard and has failed to present a plan for her own support, requires the court to impute income, even if some guesswork is needed."

In addition to searching the CanLII site for imputing an income, you can search for "intentionally underemployed". This Decker v. Fedorsen case may be helpful: CanLII - 2011 ONCJ 850 (CanLII)

"Ms. Decker was intentionally
under-employed without reasonable explanation and that income should be

imputed to her."

Both of these are completely irrelvent if you are EOW part-time parent.

CS tables are what they are. Period.

[nogoingback]

Both of these are completely irrelvent if you are EOW part-time parent.

CS tables are what they are. Period.

True, but the OP's question also refers SS, to which it is quite relevant.