Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

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

  • I think you would have an extremely tough time proving undue hardship against a household where the only adult is on welfare, if you are employed and live with another adult in a financial partnership.

    I think you would also have a tough time saying your common-law's child is your stepchild. Since you are not married, there's no legal obligation to her child.

    These are the main rebuttals you can expect to have brought against you if you make those your main arguments.

    What your ex would have a much harder time arguing against is that she is not intentionally underemployed.

    Your agreement indicated she intended to find a job. You anticipated this happening before you went on EI for the summer. Full table CS instead of offset was never meant to be a permanent solution at the time of the agreement.

    Comment


    • I think living with single mothers and subsidizing their children and their lives is really smart, good for you... I hope my ex finds somebody like you.

      Comment


      • Well, obviously do whatever you think is right. I do think Mom ought to be working if she can, but as it's been only seven months since you signed an agreement in which you committed to paying her the full table amount, it will be difficult for you to make a case for undue hardship, intentional unemployment, extra dependents, etc etc, until and unless you get the wording in your agreement changed. All of this was known to you seven months ago when you signed. What you would like your agreement to say - Mom agrees to find work and move to offset - is clearly not what it actually does say - Mom agrees to notify you if/when she finds work. Fix that, and everything else will fall into place.

        Comment


        • I think it is prudent to clean up the mess that your lawyer left you in and then go from there. I agree with others that you need to get the CS payments changed to offset or whatever is the "norm" when parents have 50/50 custody.

          Regarding Undue Hardship:

          If you have a substantial vehicle payment you can kiss undue hardship bye-bye...you would probably be asked why you have not sold it and picked up a bus pass (seriously). If you live with someone and your expenses are high you had better show that the person you are living with contributes fairly to the total household expenses. If you are in collection mode with FRO the current VAPS (voluntary repayment) will be examined to ascertain that it allows you to put food on the table. Judges don't often interfere with the collection actions of maintenance enforcement agencies because they know the maintenance enforcement agencies are empowered to make temporary arrangements with the debtor... you would likely have to prove that you made every attempt to negotiate a repayment schedule and that despite this you still cannot put a roof over your head.

          When you fill out your respective financial statements (probably the most important document) judge will look at all expenses - not just the ones you cherry-pick. I suspect the financial statements will be examined long before your first appearance in court.

          I am not trying to be negative but rather point out some things that I think might prove extremely difficult should you pursue an undue hardship claim.

          I think what you really need to do is simply change the CS to offset. Then, like others have suggested, go after having income imputed. Of course when you are having the CS changed you can pave the way by ensuring important documents are inserted in the case record which you can refer to down the road when you want to impute income.

          Comment


          • Sloppy Seconds

            Originally posted by Rioe View Post
            What your ex would have a much harder time arguing against is that she is not intentionally underemployed.
            I agree that she would also.

            The main point is that I'm in a 50/50, and foolishly signed an agreement that ex would work a job. In most of the cases I've read it was a no-brainer for the judge to use offset or impute income on the spot. The hardest part of their job was always to determine if the 40% access threshold was met. CS was the easy part of their job.

            Originally posted by Links17 View Post
            I hope my ex finds somebody like you.
            She couldn't handle someone like me.

            Originally posted by stripes View Post
            Well, obviously do whatever you think is right. I do think Mom ought to be working if she can, but as it's been only seven months since you signed an agreement in which you committed to paying her the full table amount, it will be difficult for you to make a case for undue hardship, intentional unemployment, extra dependents, etc etc, until and unless you get the wording in your agreement changed.
            Perhaps that should be one of my priorities in court, getting the wording changed.
            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            I think what you really need to do is simply change the CS to offset. Then, like others have suggested, go after having income imputed. Of course when you are having the CS changed you can pave the way by ensuring important documents are inserted in the case record which you can refer to down the road when you want to impute income.
            That's the plan. It's certainly more complex than it sounds. I think I have it pretty figured out based on everything I've read and seen. I have shared custody .. offset is the standard in these situations. I signed an agreement in good faith that ex would work. She signed in bad faith and decided not to.

            Either way, I thank you all for the advice. All of the perspectives help me for sure.
            Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-15-2016, 10:45 PM. Reason: sloppy seconds

            Comment


            • One would think that a fairly simple application is required. The financial statements that you and your ex file speak for themselves. Don't volunteer information. If you have something that was in previous documents about her working/not working... child to go to daycare etc. you can insert that.

              Attached hereto my affidavit is exhibit "x" (order of _____ date).
              Attached hereto my affidavit is exhibit "y" (agreement ____ date).

              and so on

              Short, to the point, and something judge can easily rule on. If you have ANY court documents which direct your ex to work then of course that will be very, very important to include as an exhibit.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by OntarioDaddy View Post
                You say you're doing all the driving, paying all extracurriculars, supporting your gf and her child, etc. There is no way you will qualify as Undue Hardship.
                Hi Dad. Clearing a few things up. I dont support my g/f and step child. But having a step child comes with it's obvious time/costs. I hope you read y previous posts where the CSG guidelines mentioned that they do in fact take that in to consideration. There won't be any kind of focus on this at court, simply another piece to the puzzle when the judge is comparing standard's of living in each home.
                You would just prefer to pay less cs to your child so you can help out someone else's
                What a disgusting thing to say. No. I would like to pay less CS because I have shared custody (is it really that hard to understand?), ex promised to work, having financial difficulties at the moment.
                You also knew you were agreeing to shared access and no offset, so saying you're now 50/50 and therefore it should be offset makes no sense.
                Motions to change are a great thing and there for a reason. She agreed to work and move to offset. Kids in school ..Shared custody .. she didn't do that. You're right .. she shouldn't have consented to work then offset. That was in bad faith.

                Now I just have to get some rewording in that order and see what the judge feels about relying on Welfare her entire life when she's educated, able bodied, bilingual...and has worked her whole life. I look forward to it.
                Increased costs for increased access was known at the time of your agreement.
                We already had this talk. Go back a few pages. But if you want to have it again..sure. No, I wasn't aware to the extent it would be. As mentioned I also anticipated an offset approach. Unfortunately she didn't feel like working so I endure full CS....and increased costs of 50/50.

                I really don't even need a case, to vary a CS order all I need to prove is 9(b) of CSG. I have shared custody .. the judge will get it whether I signed an agreement that she would work or not. I wish you got it.
                You also knew you were agreeing to shared access and no offset, so saying you're now 50/50 and therefore it should be offset makes no sense.
                I was agreeing that she work full time so that we could move to offset. She promised everyone in the room that she was going out to get that. SO saying I'm 50/50 and she didn't pull her end of the bargain (to move to offset) makes perfect sense.

                Again, Shared custody = offset. This is standard. Everyone anticipated her working. She chose not to. Its not me that will look ridiculous in court (much to your dismay).

                If I signed an agreement foolishly believing her that she would work ... I'll simply get that wording changed, deadlines given and schedule a reappearance. Tell me ONDaddy .. what's so "ridiculous" (your word of the day) about that? Seems fair to me.

                You have shared access. You both share the child benefits. You pay no spousal support. You're also in cs arrears from way back, which continues to grow today. Ex gets paid about $170/week from welfare. You work full-time.
                I dont know how much welfare claws back. But thanks for bringing this up. Another material change, as Arabian pointed out, is that clawbacks are coming to an end.
                I have our budgets on a comparison chart and she's doing very well living off our tax dollars, shopping at food banks and running a babysitting business under the table.
                She's better of financially than I am right now. She should have to work (move to offset as per the agreement), pay rent/bills and buy groceries like the rest of us. Don't you think?
                No material change has occurred which is your first step to even get in the door.
                But I've told you like 10 times I already satisfy 9(b) of the CSG..I've felt the increased costs of shared custody ad can prove it. I underestimated the costs and anticipated her working at the agreement. I have shared custody. Thats ALL the judge needs to know. That's the law for god sakes.

                Here, I'll post it. Digest it.

                9 Where a spouse exercises a right of access to, or has physical custody of, a child for not less than 40 per cent of the time over the course of a year, the amount of the child support order must be determined by taking into account
                • (a) the amounts set out in the applicable tables for each of the spouses;
                (b) the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
                • (c) the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse and of any child for whom support is sought.
                That's what we call a material change in circumstance. Of course I budgeted and anticipated higher costs, but it seems I underestimated. These situations are why "Motions To Change" even exist. Ex is not working. Not part of the agreement. I didn't anticipate this either. Please stop saying I have no MCC's. I have plenty. I won't even require the undue hardship route.

                If ex shouldn't qualify for OW, they would cut her off.
                Oh I know she's hidden her money well and made sure she qualified..for YEARS.

                What about the Welfare act? Nobody follows the laws anymore? I'm so surprised here on odf that there are so many trying to justify remaining on social assistance instead of helping me find ways for her to show D5 how to be responsible and work a job to make a living. It's mind-boggling.
                Ontario Works Act, 1997
                (a) purpose of Act
                [35] The essential purpose of the Ontario Works Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, Chapter 25, Schedule A (“Act”) is to provide “temporary financial assistance to those most in need while they satisfy obligations to become and stay employed:” see Act, s. 1
                In the end ONDaddy, wouldn't you agree that even if the judge rewords the order and sets a deadline for my ex to get a job...that it was a good day? (Why is this question being ignored?..lol)

                Until then, why would ex agree to change the wording or anything with the agreement.
                She probably won't. Hence "Motions To Change". I signed in good faith that she would find employment since we were now 50/50 and our child is in full time school. Unfortunately this wasn't on her radar. So I'll have to get a judge to wake her p from her fabulous dream of no bills, expenses and money falling from the sky .

                Sorry if you think that's not a good idea. I think it's a stellar one.
                Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-16-2016, 11:14 AM.

                Comment


                • Sorry ONDaddy, but you've been wrong my entire case. Had I listened to you at all I probably wouldn't have 50/50 without having to go to trial right now. Nonetheless thanks for stopping by.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LovingFather32 View Post
                    Sorry ONDaddy, but you've been wrong my entire case. Had I listened to you at all I probably wouldn't have 50/50 without having to go to trial right now. Nonetheless thanks for stopping by.
                    But, ONDaddy does have a good point about agreements made on consent having a much higher standard of evaluation. If you consent to something it is hard to undo this early after having consented to it.

                    You may simply need more time to bring a new application to have an agreement made on consent changed. You may find an unsympathetic judge who shares a very similar view to ONDaddy. So make sure you have all bases covered before bringing a new Application.

                    Agreements marked final that are made on consent that had lawyers involved in writing are really hard to change. Unless you were under some form of medical duress that you have good evidence to support.

                    That is why I again remind everyone to really understand the impact their consent agreements and orders are... especially when made FINAL.

                    Again, it isn't about wrong or right LF32. Even if ONDaddy is wrong about you a judge can be just as wrong in evaluating your materials and position.

                    Comment


                    • Get the ball rolling

                      Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                      But, ONDaddy does have a good point about agreements made on consent having a much higher standard of evaluation. If you consent to something it is hard to undo this early after having consented to it.
                      Yes I agree with you. But when I consented everyone in the room, including myself anticipated that she would work. That was the agreement.

                      You may simply need more time to bring a new application to have an agreement made on consent changed. You may find an unsympathetic judge who shares a very similar view to ONDaddy. So make sure you have all bases covered before bringing a new Application.
                      That was my initial concern .. bringing it too early.

                      But then again, I dont think many judges would disagree to changing the wording of that agreement and setting a deadline or review of her employment search efforts. Just to get the spotlight on her game would be worth it I think.

                      Agreements marked final that are made on consent that had lawyers involved in writing are really hard to change. Unless you were under some form of medical duress that you have good evidence to support.
                      I agree with you about final orders, believe me. There was a final order for me to pay table CS and for my ex to work a job and immediately switch to offset. I fulfilled my part of the agreement, but she has not.

                      I'd be okay if the presiding justice gave a little kick in the a$$ for her to work and a deadline for doing so....just to get the ball rolling.

                      Comment


                      • So you have an Order marked "FINAL" in which there is written instruction for her to get a job? That would be very helpful for you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by arabian View Post
                          So you have an Order marked "FINAL" in which there is written instruction for her to get a job? That would be very helpful for you.
                          I cant remember for sure but I think it said that she would inform him when she found fulltime work. I could be wrong.

                          Comment


                          • From what LF has posted, the wording of the final agreement is that Dad will pay Mom the full table amount with 50/50 custody until Mom finds full-time employment. Mom will notify him within 30 days of beginning full-time work and the CS arrangement will switch from Dad paying the full table to offset. The agreement does not say that Mom will find full-time work - only that she will notify him if/when she does. Big difference.

                            Although I think everyone agrees it would be good for Mom for find work, the fact that she hasn't done so is not a violation of Mom and Dad's final agreement. Devil in details - be careful what you sign.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by stripes View Post
                              From what LF has posted, the wording of the final agreement is that Dad will pay Mom the full table amount with 50/50 custody until Mom finds full-time employment. Mom will notify him within 30 days of beginning full-time work and the CS arrangement will switch from Dad paying the full table to offset. The agreement does not say that Mom will find full-time work - only that she will notify him if/when she does. Big difference.
                              Umm no .. it certainly does not say "if/when" she finds employment. Did you just make that up? It says she's currently seeking employment and must notify me when she does to switch to offset. Not once does it mention if/when.
                              There's even a clause in the final order stating that if child care is getting in the way of ex finding work, to place child in daycare.

                              There were paragraphs in that agreement dedicated strictly to her finding a job. It's not that complicated.. any judge will encourage her to work so that we're able to move to offset in our shared custody.

                              You're right, it would make a big difference with your made up wording. If you're going to give advice, all I ask is that you don't throw in imaginary words to support your position. Any judge will encourage her to get a job....as per our agreement.

                              Although I think everyone agrees it would be good for Mom for find work, the fact that she hasn't done so is not a violation of Mom and Dad's final agreement. Devil in details - be careful what you sign.
                              A little rewording of the order and having a deadline set for mom to find work seems appropriate no? I think that would be reasonable if nothing else. Wouldn't you agree? We should be on offset now .. her lack of effort is the reason we're not.
                              Last edited by LovingFather32; 08-16-2016, 06:05 PM.

                              Comment


                              • No, I didn't make it up. This is what your order says, according to you:

                                "The Respondent must obtain and is currently seeking employment. Once the Respondent is employed full time for over 30 days, she shall provide the Applicant of her income, and the child support will be modified using the offset method".

                                There's no timeframe for Mom to find a full time job in your order as currently written, which makes the "must obtain" part meaningless. She could spend the next 18 years "seeking work" with you continuing to pay the full table amount. I'm not making things up - you signed a lousy agreement. If you get a specific deadline for when CS switches to offset, you will be in better shape. At the moment, Mom isn't violating anything she signed.

                                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