Paying Full Table CS with 50/50 Shared Parenting

[LovingFather32]

SIN cards are being replaced. I had to get mine updated to reflect my married name when I started my current job a couple years ago now. The new SIN "card" is just letter printed on normal sized paper stating my details and the number. The card was so much easier but they are phasing it out so all new cards and replacement\updated cards are just a piece of paper.

I have a copy of the SIN. I brought it to RBC and they told me I need the card.

I tried to apply for the card via application process and they said only the parent who receives the child tax credit can apply for that. I then called the gov't and thy said the same. I found that really weird.

Now I have shared custody and an order to control SIN card and cant get my hands on it. But trust me...Ive tried so hard to get it myself. I never in my life thought it would be this tough to try and open a savings account for D5. I do know she deserves one though.

I'll figure it out one way or another. Its not something I want to make a big deal about and its not in any of my materials.

[LovingFather32]

Regarding the Child Tax Credits.....I get them next year.

But what I did not know is that I'm a guy so they have to be sent to my g/f's account .. because she's a girl...even though I pay everything for D5. Even the lady from CRA told me it was archaic. Does this sound crazy to anyone else?

[rockscan]

Its probably to protect women in difficult relationships...

[LovingFather32]

Its probably to protect women in difficult relationships...

Perhaps. No biggie for me really. She'll just give it to me..but still an interesting law nonetheless.

[standing on the sidelines]

Regarding the Child Tax Credits.....I get them next year.

But what I did not know is that I'm a guy so they have to be sent to my g/f's account .. because she's a girl...even though I pay everything for D5. Even the lady from CRA told me it was archaic. Does this sound crazy to anyone else?

that's strange. What about fathers who are able to collect it but don't have a new partner or whatever?

[LovingFather32]

that's strange. What about fathers who are able to collect it but don't have a new partner or whatever?

Maybe it has to go to their mom and they have to earn it by raking the leaves and taking out the garbage? lol

[SadAndTired]

Your gf doesn't have to collect it LF. Absurd.

My bf collects for his kids. It is shared custody.

The only reason you would do that is because you think you make too much money and your gf would get more as a student.

[blinkandimgone]

Cctb is automatically sent to the female of the household for all children, regardless if they are hers or not as long as she has at least one child of her own. It's incredibly bizarre, but for some reason that's the way CRA does it. You can apply to have it changed.

If there is no female 'parent' in the household it goes to the father as he is the only parent of any kind in the household.

[arabian]

In the "olden" days I believe one filled out a form in the hospital. Same with legal name changes. I recall a nurse in the hospital trying to get me to fill out 2 forms. I declined the name change but I did fill out the "government" form. I recall this because I thought it strange. Perhaps it was just a birth registration but it would stand to reason that the birth record is tied to tax credits/baby bonuses (or whatever they are called nowadays).

[Janus]

Cctb is automatically sent to the female of the household for all children, regardless if they are hers or not as long as she has at least one child of her own. It's incredibly bizarre, but for some reason that's the way CRA does it. You can apply to have it changed.

Correct. It is insanely sexist. But it is a "good" sexist, so nobody complains.

I remember reading that the first time and assumed that I was accidentally reading the tax code from the 19th century or something.

[Links17]

It's why people hate feminism, it's because it isn't about equality. It is just a lobby for the benefit of women at the expense of men.

[stripes]

Regarding the Child Tax Credits.....I get them next year.

But what I did not know is that I'm a guy so they have to be sent to my g/f's account .. because she's a girl...even though I pay everything for D5. Even the lady from CRA told me it was archaic. Does this sound crazy to anyone else?

I think the person you spoke to at CRA is wrong. My ex collects half the child tax credits for our kid, and he is definitely not a girl. If you call back, ask if you can speak to a supervisor.

[stripes]

In the "olden" days I believe one filled out a form in the hospital. Same with legal name changes. I recall a nurse in the hospital trying to get me to fill out 2 forms. I declined the name change but I did fill out the "government" form. I recall this because I thought it strange. Perhaps it was just a birth registration but it would stand to reason that the birth record is tied to tax credits/baby bonuses (or whatever they are called nowadays).

I think the reason that the mother got the baby bonus back in the old days was because there is no doubt who the baby's mother is - the person who got pregnant and gave birth - but there could be doubt about who the father is (what if the wrong man claimed to be the father?). So assigning the baby bonus to the mother was a way of ensuring that the money went to the baby's parent

I agree it's archaic in the present era of paternity testing and single fathers, and should changed - just speculating on what the logic might have been way back when.

[LovingFather32]

I think the person you spoke to at CRA is wrong. My ex collects half the child tax credits for our kid, and he is definitely not a girl. If you call back, ask if you can speak to a supervisor.

3 different phone calls over a one year period with 3 different CRA agents each telling me the same thing. I'm not hung up on this tiny issue though .. I just find it very interesting.

[LovingFather32]

So I need to get this OTS out soon. I'm trying desperately to do everything I can to stay out of court.

Rioe suggested some wording like this:
Dear Ex,

It has been six months since we were in court, at which time you had assured the judge you were seeking employment, and he ordered us to switch to the offset CS system when that happened. This has not happened as planned. To avoid having to go back to court to resolve this issue, I would like to propose that we switch to the offset CS system starting on October 1, by imputing an income to you of $23,712 a year (full-time minimum wage equivalent).

My CS based on my previously disclosed 2015 income of $LFk would remain X a month, and your CS would be $190. This means that $X-190 would be what I paid you monthly going forward until adjustment time after taxes are done in 2017.

If we did end up in court, I would be explaining to the judge that you are a bilingual paralegal, and could reasonably earn far more than minimum wage.

I don't want any report cards, SIN card, arrears talk included at all. I want the OTS to be polite/gentle but to get my point across. Does everybody agree with Rio's suggestion or have anything they might change, add, etc?