We aren't in this situation yet, but I anticipate we will be in due time.
The facts: My husband's former spouse receives full child and spousal support. It is more than enough to live off as my husband is a high income earner. Her spousal will be ending in a few years. We have children more than 40 percent of time but still pay full CS by way of an order on consent. While the Order states that "there are no section 7/extraordinary expenses with the exception of post secondary education, which will be reviewed at a later date" we continue to pay a substantial amount of "extra's" such as dental, insurances, para medical claims, extra curricular activities, clothing, etc. etc. etc.
The mom in this equation had been running a day care in her home for the past few years. It was a successful day care and she was earning at least $40K per year and potentially up to $50K per year as her rates are posted online and we have seen her income tax returns. Of course, on her taxes she claimed enormous business expenses (I believe 53% of her income earned) which reduced her income on line 150 significantly.
Recently I noticed a local ad that advised that she is closing her full time day care and electing to work only before and after school for a fraction of what she was making. As far as we can see, she will be working only 2 to 2.5 hours a day now. As it stands, the ad that is on line shows that she has no children in care at present, so she has essentially shut down her business and she is waiting for kids to sign up to her newly revised schedule. Given her hours of availability are posted on line and are very small in comparison to other child care providers I'm willing to bet many people will not be interested given most people work an 8 hour day and her hours don't allow for that... I point this out because it will hamper many people's interest and reduce her employ-ability.
So my question is, when it comes time for their children to go to post secondary school the costs are typically shared proportionately between the child and the parents. If she continues to not work, or work only 2 hours a day, would a judge likely impute income given she has worked for a few years already full time with her day care and is now intentionally underemployed?
I should add, their agreement for spousal support was for 8 years for a ten year marriage. She was a stay at home mom for all but one year of the marriage. When they separated her boyfriend moved in within six months of separation and yet full (and high) spousal support was continued with no claw back. My husband elected to pay her full spousal for a fixed term of almost 8 years because he felt that was in everyone's best interests, she agreed. She also wasn't very motivated to work or go to school and she was lying about her boyfriend living with her even though he moved from the coast and into her bed lol. It just wasn't worth the headache of trying to prove any of her falsehoods and he genuinely wanted to be fair to her. I only add this because most spousal support is to end when the recipient is "back on their feet" and this isn't one of those cases...and anyhow, she did get back on her feet with her daycare and even worked at a community facility full time for a while all the while she was making good money with full SS and CS with no penalties while living common law to boot.
I'm not interested in the "how silly my husband was" with his generosity with CS or SS. I'm curious of your opinion on what will happen when kids go to university and how mom's employment status and history will be viewed when calculating "proportionate share" of education costs.
The facts: My husband's former spouse receives full child and spousal support. It is more than enough to live off as my husband is a high income earner. Her spousal will be ending in a few years. We have children more than 40 percent of time but still pay full CS by way of an order on consent. While the Order states that "there are no section 7/extraordinary expenses with the exception of post secondary education, which will be reviewed at a later date" we continue to pay a substantial amount of "extra's" such as dental, insurances, para medical claims, extra curricular activities, clothing, etc. etc. etc.
The mom in this equation had been running a day care in her home for the past few years. It was a successful day care and she was earning at least $40K per year and potentially up to $50K per year as her rates are posted online and we have seen her income tax returns. Of course, on her taxes she claimed enormous business expenses (I believe 53% of her income earned) which reduced her income on line 150 significantly.
Recently I noticed a local ad that advised that she is closing her full time day care and electing to work only before and after school for a fraction of what she was making. As far as we can see, she will be working only 2 to 2.5 hours a day now. As it stands, the ad that is on line shows that she has no children in care at present, so she has essentially shut down her business and she is waiting for kids to sign up to her newly revised schedule. Given her hours of availability are posted on line and are very small in comparison to other child care providers I'm willing to bet many people will not be interested given most people work an 8 hour day and her hours don't allow for that... I point this out because it will hamper many people's interest and reduce her employ-ability.
So my question is, when it comes time for their children to go to post secondary school the costs are typically shared proportionately between the child and the parents. If she continues to not work, or work only 2 hours a day, would a judge likely impute income given she has worked for a few years already full time with her day care and is now intentionally underemployed?
I should add, their agreement for spousal support was for 8 years for a ten year marriage. She was a stay at home mom for all but one year of the marriage. When they separated her boyfriend moved in within six months of separation and yet full (and high) spousal support was continued with no claw back. My husband elected to pay her full spousal for a fixed term of almost 8 years because he felt that was in everyone's best interests, she agreed. She also wasn't very motivated to work or go to school and she was lying about her boyfriend living with her even though he moved from the coast and into her bed lol. It just wasn't worth the headache of trying to prove any of her falsehoods and he genuinely wanted to be fair to her. I only add this because most spousal support is to end when the recipient is "back on their feet" and this isn't one of those cases...and anyhow, she did get back on her feet with her daycare and even worked at a community facility full time for a while all the while she was making good money with full SS and CS with no penalties while living common law to boot.
I'm not interested in the "how silly my husband was" with his generosity with CS or SS. I'm curious of your opinion on what will happen when kids go to university and how mom's employment status and history will be viewed when calculating "proportionate share" of education costs.
Comment