Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Offset child child support and standard of living

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

  • Offset child child support and standard of living

    My ex purchased and moved into a million dollar house from a $700k house (somehow on 60k / yr salary).

    I make more than my ex and I pay offset child support of $400 / month.

    Obviously she doesn't need help for our kids standard of living. Any way to reduce or eliminate child support?

    Or can someone help me understand why I am giving her money, because it sure doesn't look like she needs it.

    Thanks!

  • #2
    Sorry bud but its based on income. You cant stop or reduce it further.

    Comment


    • #3
      In shared custody, CS should consider the following

      9a) offset
      9b) increased costs due to shared custody
      9c) actual situation

      You are referencing 9c, where paying CS into a household with a higher standard of living doesn't help the children.

      In theory, each part of section 9 must be considered. In reality, judges routinely ignore 9b and 9c, despite explicit directions from the supreme court in the Contino case to not do so.

      If it makes you feel better, I'm in the same situation. I pay CS to a household with a wildly higher standard of living, and I have the kids slightly more than 50% of the time. Every penny I pay in CS hurts my kids.

      Comment


      • #4
        My DH pays CS to a higher earning household - $600 in offset CS and an additional $500 in S7 more than their mother. As a result we have to limit the children in how many extracurricular sports and music they can participate in bc we simply don't have the funds. If we had our extra $1100 in income per month the kids would have access to tutoring and ability to get extra power skating etc. The children benefit from a larger home than we have and more luxurious cars with their other parent. As I've said before, no adult should be responsible for another adult and in 50/50 situations monies should not be exchanged. Each parent is responsible to pay for the children they brought into this world. You don't make enough? Get a part time job when you're not with the kids to supplement - shared parenting allows for that!


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by len14 View Post
          My DH pays CS to a higher earning household - $600 in offset CS and an additional $500 in S7 more than their mother. As a result we have to limit the children in how many extracurricular sports and music they can participate in bc we simply don't have the funds. If we had our extra $1100 in income per month the kids would have access to tutoring and ability to get extra power skating etc. The children benefit from a larger home than we have and more luxurious cars with their other parent. As I've said before, no adult should be responsible for another adult and in 50/50 situations monies should not be exchanged. Each parent is responsible to pay for the children they brought into this world. You don't make enough? Get a part time job when you're not with the kids to supplement - shared parenting allows for that!


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


          In offset both parents are paying for the children they brought into this world... the whole standard of living thing comes when a parent has a new spouse who makes more. The new spouse's income doesn't come into play and it shouldn't because they didn't bring the children into this world. There is always an option of the payer to find a new spouse that makes more, thus their standard of living increases without having to increase their CS. I don't necessarily agree with offset CS the way it's usually calculated but if one wants a higher standard of living without having to pay more CS the new spouse could get a better paying job or a second job.

          Btw... I am a new spouse and make more than my husband and continue to force myself higher into the work force so we can enjoy a higher standard of living without him having to pay more CS. That being said he also continues to further his career even though he pays more CS because of it.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
            In offset both parents are paying for the children they brought into this world... the whole standard of living thing comes when a parent has a new spouse who makes more. The new spouse's income doesn't come into play and it shouldn't because they didn't bring the children into this world. There is always an option of the payer to find a new spouse that makes more, thus their standard of living increases without having to increase their CS. I don't necessarily agree with offset CS the way it's usually calculated but if one wants a higher standard of living without having to pay more CS the new spouse could get a better paying job or a second job.

            Btw... I am a new spouse and make more than my husband and continue to force myself higher into the work force so we can enjoy a higher standard of living without him having to pay more CS. That being said he also continues to further his career even though he pays more CS because of it.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


            I don't care about the new spouses earnings. Point blank if you need $x amount to live each month, and you share custody 50/50 go figure it out yourself. Nobody is responsible for a grown persons welfare. I wouldn't take a dime from the father of my children who takes care of them half the time. It's ridiculous that case law trumps legislation and Supreme Court.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by len14 View Post
              I don't care about the new spouses earnings. Point blank if you need $x amount to live each month, and you share custody 50/50 go figure it out yourself. Nobody is responsible for a grown persons welfare. I wouldn't take a dime from the father of my children who takes care of them half the time. It's ridiculous that case law trumps legislation and Supreme Court.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


              Most people don't actually require the CS each month but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be paid. Sometimes the guidelines are ridiculous I will say that but why shouldn't children be supported to the best of the parent's ability? My husband has more than doubled his salary from the whole time he was married to his ex... so had zero help in that. He made a total career change when we met because factory work just wasn't cutting it. Is it fair he has to pay CS on an increased income which is double what his marriage income was while his ex still works in the same factory? Probably not, but it is what it is. He is just as responsible for those kids as she is and that means financially. Sure we could probably do more without having to pay her CS but there is zero we can do about that. At the end of the day he knows he is supporting the kids to the best of his ability and that's what's important.

              I question why you don't support CS in a 50-50 situation, especially if one parent makes less


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

              Comment


              • #8
                My adversity to offset CS is because purpose of why it's in place in the first place is not respected. Intent is to equalize standards in both households, if that component is fulfilled through whatever means, then what is the actual purpose of child support in shared custody? It simply makes no sense.


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #9
                  My partners ex makes 100 g a year and he was paying cs of 25g when making 16g part time because the economy crapped out. Now with my income we have a pretty sweet life whereas she will argue her kids are missing out while he is living with his "rich gf". It sucks but its the way it is. The important thing (that you dont realize) is that you are there for your kids and while they may be materialistic now, they wont in the future and your relationship will pay dividends in the future.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by len14 View Post
                    My adversity to offset CS is because purpose of why it's in place in the first place is not respected. Intent is to equalize standards in both households, if that component is fulfilled through whatever means, then what is the actual purpose of child support in shared custody? It simply makes no sense.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


                    So by whatever means what you are getting at is that if it would take $10,000 to equalize the parents income then the lower earning parent should get a second job to make up the difference? I guess I'm just not understanding. If parents make close to the same then no CS is payable but why would CS not be payable because one parent decides to get together with a new spouse?


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by len14 View Post
                      My adversity to offset CS is because purpose of why it's in place in the first place is not respected. Intent is to equalize standards in both households, if that component is fulfilled through whatever means, then what is the actual purpose of child support in shared custody? It simply makes no sense.


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                      "whatever means" ? new girlfriend, new boyfriend? How about the 2 actual parents, standardize their incomes.
                      Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Can I understand why offset support if living standard is the same in both households in shared situation? Whatever means could be shared living with a new spouse (decreased expenses now allow for more), could be living with grandparents, lottery, inheritance etc. In our situation both parents have same level of education, same years in the workforce, shared maternal/paternal leave. Yet one remains under employed and turns down promotion (openly admits this)bc she is happy and stress free. So she will continue to do bare minimum, have an abundance of free time to scrap book when the children are with us 60% (she measures the hours to make sure she stays just above 40%- she has a spreadsheet) of the time.


                        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by len14 View Post
                          Can I understand why offset support if living standard is the same in both households in shared situation? Whatever means could be shared living with a new spouse (decreased expenses now allow for more), could be living with grandparents, lottery, inheritance etc. In our situation both parents have same level of education, same years in the workforce, shared maternal/paternal leave. Yet one remains under employed and turns down promotion (openly admits this)bc she is happy and stress free. So she will continue to do bare minimum, have an abundance of free time to scrap book when the children are with us 60% (she measures the hours to make sure she stays just above 40%- she has a spreadsheet) of the time.
                          Child Support is determined purely from the incomes of the two parents. Not their assets, and not the income of their new partner or any other people they live with. A parent is legally required to devote a proportion of their income to their child, no matter where that child lives.

                          Offset does distribute the CS in a slightly odd manner, but the intention is still for both parents to be supporting the child in proportion to their own income. So money flows from the higher income parent to the lower income parent. Regardless of what else either parent has going on in their financial situation.

                          There are remedies to this, if the situation is unfair, however. Those are called 'undue hardship' and 'imputation of income.' To get either going though, you usually have to go to court, because the lower income parent isn't going to voluntarily agree.

                          Undue hardship is a declaration that the households' financial picture is so one-sided that it would be too much of a hardship to have the money flow from the higher income parent to the lower income parent, due to the differences in the whole household that would result. Like if the higher income parent is still single and the lower income parent is supported by a wealthy new partner. You would go to court to ask that the total household income be considered, not just the individual parents' incomes. I'm told that to prove this is necessary, the one household has to be really suffering in comparison to the other one though, like struggling to afford the normal bills.

                          Imputation of income is a determination that the lower income parent is deliberately underemployed or unemployed, and taking advantage of the increased CS from the higher income parent to cover their own self-created shortfall. Like someone who works part-time when they could be full-time, resulting in getting more CS through the offset system. You would go to court to ask that the offset CS calculation use a pretend income that the lower-income parent should be making, instead of what they are actually making. I'm told that to prove this is the case, you need to be able to demonstrate that the other parent could be working more and has deliberately chosen not to, for whatever reason.

                          You have to look at your particular situation and figure out which option most applies to it, and your likelihood of success.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by len14 View Post
                            Can I understand why offset support if living standard is the same in both households in shared situation? Whatever means could be shared living with a new spouse (decreased expenses now allow for more), could be living with grandparents, lottery, inheritance etc. In our situation both parents have same level of education, same years in the workforce, shared maternal/paternal leave. Yet one remains under employed and turns down promotion (openly admits this)bc she is happy and stress free. So she will continue to do bare minimum, have an abundance of free time to scrap book when the children are with us 60% (she measures the hours to make sure she stays just above 40%- she has a spreadsheet) of the time.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


                            Turning down promotions does not make on underemployed in my opinion. If she is working full time in a good position which she must be, there are no laws stating one must take promotions or more work load to increase their salary. Some people don't want the added stress and if she's making a decent wage no judge will fault her for that. Now if she was making min wage with a high level of education one could argue she is underemployed. There is nothing forcing your partner to accept promotions and a higher work load. If your partner chooses to do that well that decision is his to make. If he doesn't want to increase his CS then he can stop taking promotions and stay in his current position.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                              Turning down promotions does not make on underemployed in my opinion. If she is working full time in a good position which she must be, there are no laws stating one must take promotions or more work load to increase their salary. Some people don't want the added stress and if she's making a decent wage no judge will fault her for that. Now if she was making min wage with a high level of education one could argue she is underemployed. There is nothing forcing your partner to accept promotions and a higher work load. If your partner chooses to do that well that decision is his to make. If he doesn't want to increase his CS then he can stop taking promotions and stay in his current position.


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


                              Income is the determining factors in child support for sole custody. As per child support guidelines for shared situations there's other factors that are supposed to be taken into account -

                              the amount set out in the provincial and territorial child support tables, by income for each parent;
                              the increased costs of shared custody arrangements; and
                              the means and needs of the parents and the children.

                              The guidelines are well defined. The interpretation and application of CS offset is the problem.







                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              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