Advice: issues are Custody, CS and arrears

[FamilyBlah]

Here's the Cole's Notes version:

- separated since April 1, 2009
- wife quit job, secured a Dr's note and left matrimonial home while I was at work
- she moved into a women's shelter claiming abuse
- abuse claims are false
- I was making $40,000 at time and she was making nothing
- I paid child support for about a year until i was wrongfully dismissed
- since then I have averaged $16,000/year and she earns about $40,000.
- she is extremely unreasonable to deal with
- I am unrepresented (she has a lawyer feasting off conflict)
- 3 kids (ages 6, 7 and 9)
- there has never been a custody order in place
- she has restricted access since separation
- we are both custodial parents
- she is applicant, i am respondent
- I have made two offers to settle, none from them


If I'm leaving anything out then please ask.


The issues at hand are:
Custody and access
Child Support
Arrears


Custody and access
- I have stated from day one that i want 50/50 shared custody. Ex tried to tell me that there was no such thing
- there has been no custody order
- ex has asked for order for her as primary residency but it has never been ordered
- however at an uncontested hearing her slimy lawyer requested an order that primary residency continue with applicant (i'm unsure how something never ordered could be ordered to continue)
- during the marriage we were both equal parents and shared the parenting
- she originally asked for Joint Custody with her as the primary in her application
- they have since moved the file into Divorce Court and are now asking for sole custody
- her affidavits have lies that I can prove (I hear this is standard though)
- we had a Settlement Conference in March (it was a joke)


Child Support
- salaries are essentially reversed now compared to 2009
- we have been sharing expenses
- there is no support order in place right now

Arrears
- they claim I owe a ridiculous amount of arrears. I submit she is in arrears


I am in the process of filing a motion to address all three issues.

I am interested in the sort of things I should be looking at using for evidence.

Do I need to include Case Law in evidence for a motion?



Feel free to ask any questions. I'm hoping this will lead to a good discussion that will not only help my situation but also others with similar issues.

[FightingForFamily]

I don't think you will like what you're going to hear...

You have waited a long time to let things go unresolved and this will almost definitely work against you severely.

-What kind of access do you actually have? You state you have always wanted 50/50 but if you aren't close to it now, after 3 years status quo will likely be enforced instead.

-When your income dropped from 40k to 16k did you continue paying child support? How long were you out of work? The income you are giving here is not only well below your "potential" but it's even below minimum wage. They may successfully claim that you owe in arrears support according to an income for 40k. What was your average income the last 3 years before separation? If your income has always been around 40k, it is likely to be imputed and used against you.

-You claim your ex has arrears. However unless you have the children more than 40% of the time as per section 9 of the child support guidelines, she owes absolutely nothing.

-For any offers to settle to be taken into consideration by the court they must be done formally, without prejudice and include your signature. Additionally, they must be fair and reflect the family law rules and supporting guidelines.

-You will have a hard time pursuing costs being self represented. If you lose, and you will almost definitely lose on most fronts, you will be liable for her costs.

As for evidence, detailed journals listing your parenting time. A full parenting plan for the future of you and the children. Full financial statements. Full detailed, itemized budget month by month for every item. Keep the kids expenses seperate so you can show what you are already spending on them. If you claim you were wrongly dismissed you must have a ton of evidence to support that, enough that you should have been able to sue your former employer for wrongful dismissal if you want it to count in any court room.

Supporting case law would be helpful too if you can explain how it applies to your situation. Most of the case law I've read this week would basically hang you upside down and gut you like a farm animal. Hopefully there's more information we're missing, such as that actually have the kids 40%+ of the time and have been paying ongoing table amount child support even while unemployed.

Those would be your only hope, IMO.

[FamilyBlah]

I don't think you will like what you're going to hear...

You have waited a long time to let things go unresolved and this will almost definitely work against you severely.

-What kind of access do you actually have? You state you have always wanted 50/50 but if you aren't close to it now, after 3 years status quo will likely be enforced instead.

Thank you. I am prepared for these questions. I suspect I will be asked them again

I have never consented implicitly nor explicitly. I have also never acquiesced.

It has been a constant battle but right now the schedule is:

Every Wednesday they are with me and stay overnight.

It's basically every second weekend except I get two weekends in a row every now and then.

I am proposing 50/50 with the sharing of every second weekend and Wednesday and Thursday instead of just Wednesday.

The only difference between how it is now and what I have been proposing is that we alternate every weekend, the kids are with me Wednesday's and Thursdays instead of just Wednesdays AND they kids sleep at my house on the Sunday evenings of the weekends they are with me. The ex currently picks them up at 6:15 pm on the Sundays.

The schedule I have proposed eliminates any face-to-face contact between me and the ex during the school year and there is no extra transfer as they were here on the Wednesdays anyway.

Also, the only consideration is "the best interests of the children" not the status quo. If the status quo is created by lies and manipulation then it shouldn't hold much weight. There is case law to support that now. http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...1onsc6451.html

Also, the status quo was unilaterally changed on April 1, 2009 when she abducted the children from their home.

http://canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/200...nlii13040.html

Even if her false accusations of abuse were true, it doesn't mean the children were in any danger and required removal from the home.

-When your income dropped from 40k to 16k did you continue paying child support? How long were you out of work? The income you are giving here is not only well below your "potential" but it's even below minimum wage. They may successfully claim that you owe in arrears support according to an income for 40k. What was your average income the last 3 years before separation? If your income has always been around 40k, it is likely to be imputed and used against you.

No, I did not continue paying child support. The child support order was made in October 2009 when my salary was $40,000 and my wife had no income because she had just quit her job and got a Dr's note.

The Order was a temporary order based on our incomes at the time and the need to care for the children. We were required to provide each other with income info within 30 days of the 1-year anniversary of the order. On October 25, 2010 my ex emailed me and asked my income info. I informed her it was $0.00. She did not reveal her income. In fact, the Financial Statement she filed with her Application is the only one she has filed in this case. Thirteen days after being notified that my income was $0.00, my ex filed a sworn affidavit in which she states that to the best of her knowledge my income is the same as it was in 2009 ($40,000).

A job loss is a material change in circumstances to me.

I lost my job almost a year to the day after the order was made. I then applied for E.I. and received my first E.I. payment in late November 2010. My ex's income at this time was $37,000. We shared in the expenses 50/50 and I had the children an average of over 40% from October 2010 to October 2011.

We actually entered into a verbal agreement (I know!) where we would share in the expenses and I was to notify her if I got my job back. There is no instance when she asked for a child support payment. I have numerous requests to share in expenses and I also have a couple of instances documented when she asked if i had found a job or heard anything from the union.

Her - found a job yet

Me - No

--------

Her - heard anything from the union about the job
Me - why?
Her - for child support purposes
Me - nothing yet
Her - ok, let me know when you do
Me - I said I would
Her - ty

My ex-wife's salary going from $0.00 to $37,000.00 seems like a material change in circumstance also.

It will be difficult to impute my income because I did not quit and I am not intentionally underemployed. There is case law to support this.

The Child Support Guidelines give 9 circumstances in which the court may impute income. None of them apply to my situation.

As part of the grievance settlement I was required to sign a letter of resignation. This is procedural only so my record with my former employer is cleaned. There was no possibility whatsoever of getting my job back.

Drgala v. Pauli
"Where the loss of income does not result from the payor's actions, there is no basis for a claim to impute."

They will claim I resigned. The paperwork and the standard practice will indicate otherwise.

-You claim your ex has arrears. However unless you have the children more than 40% of the time as per section 9 of the child support guidelines, she owes absolutely nothing.

From October 2010 to October 2011, the children were with me on average per month for more than 40% of the time. I also volunteered at the school and went on class trips. Also, we are both custodial parents and the school records even list the children's residence as "Dual Residence". I have this document.

Just looked it up:

"Custody: Both Parents
Living with: Dual Residence Split Parents"

Both parents have an obligation to support their children based on their ability to do so. Does that change because one person has unilaterally decided to restrict the children's access to the other parent?

-For any offers to settle to be taken into consideration by the court they must be done formally, without prejudice and include your signature. Additionally, they must be fair and reflect the family law rules and supporting guidelines.

Both of my offers were formal letters signed by me. I am almost certain they DO NOT have to contain "without prejudice" as this would make them irrelevant as the judge would not consider them when deciding costs.

-You will have a hard time pursuing costs being self represented. If you lose, and you will almost definitely lose on most fronts, you will be liable for her costs.

I don't care about costs.

As for evidence, detailed journals listing your parenting time. A full parenting plan for the future of you and the children. Full financial statements. Full detailed, itemized budget month by month for every item. Keep the kids expenses seperate so you can show what you are already spending on them. If you claim you were wrongly dismissed you must have a ton of evidence to support that, enough that you should have been able to sue your former employer for wrongful dismissal if you want it to count in any court room.

I don't know if Journals are worth the paper they are written on, but I plan to have colour-coded charts to show where the children were in a clear and simple manner.

The wrongful dismissal case was settled with my receiving a grievance settlement. My ex's lawyer tried extremely hard to get her hands on this (still may succeed...who knows) even changing the Judge's endorsement from "grievance" settlement to "severance" settlement. Then she sent it to me for approval but I caught the change and filed a Form 25E: Notice disputing approval of order. The lawyer then called the courthouse to change it back.

Supporting case law would be helpful too if you can explain how it applies to your situation. Most of the case law I've read this week would basically hang you upside down and gut you like a farm animal. Hopefully there's more information we're missing, such as that actually have the kids 40%+ of the time and have been paying ongoing table amount child support even while unemployed.

Those would be your only hope, IMO.

Every aspect of the current arrangement screams of a shared parenting arrangement EXCEPT the amount of time the children spend at each home. This is intentionally restricted by my ex. No reason has ever been given.

[FamilyBlah]

Have I mentioned the two motions for contempt made against me yet?

[FamilyBlah]

Here's what I have here next to me right now:

Based only on sleepovers...

December 2010 45%
January 2011 30%
February 2011 43%
March 2011 45%
April 2011 36%
May 2011 29%
June 2011 36%
July 2011 42 %
August 2011 55%
September 2011 40%

That adds up to 40.1% to me.

[FamilyBlah]

Just found this quote from CanLII - 2008 ONCJ 748 (CanLII)

Funny thing: the lawyer for the Respondent in the above case is my ex's lawyer.

[76] The parties are reminded that the order purposefully permits the parties to agree to adjust the parenting time. It is impossible for the court to micromanage the parenting time, particularly in the face of the urgency and instability of the present situation. In examining parenting abilities and plans of parents, courts so often examine the events to determine which parent has been most generous and selfless in his or her dealings with the other. This is often of great assistance in making a more permanent determination regarding custody or parenting time. It is not uncommon for custody or greater parenting time to be granted to the more reasonable and accommodating parent. Parents’ actions are scrutinized quite carefully.



Found another...http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.d...11oncj752.html

Ex's lawyer is the lawyer for the Applicant this time.

Here's a quote: "The Court noted that parents have an obligation to support their children commensurate with their income and that this obligation exists independently of any statute or court order."

"[23] The Supreme Court observed that when the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 came into effect in the spring of 1997, they provided a “simplified way” for parents and the courts to quantify child support obligations. The implication of the approach taken by the Child Support Guidelines was described by the Court as “profound.” “Except for situations of shared custody” the Court noted “a parent’s increased income would not only increase his share of the child support burden but also it will increase the total amount of support owed.” “The underlying theory of the Guidelines”, the Court observed “was that the support obligation itself should fluctuate depending on a parent’s income” (see paragraph 45 of the decision)."

[FightingForFamily]

You're very verbose, I liked the cliff notes version

-Not taking immediate legal action and waiting 3 years amounts to giving implicit consent for the situation to continue. Even if you were grumpy about it, you did not take action until 3 years later and everyone will want to know why now.

-Obvious answer is that you're broke and seeking financial assistance.

-Nothing you have provided gives support that the status quo is based on deceit and lies.

-Whatever abuse allegations were made seem larely irrelevant. CAS has not become involved, nor you have been charged. You haven't mentioned any police reports. Thus this is easy to set aside.

-Nothing you have provided indicates she has restricted access unreasonably. You still have your kids 40% of the time. This is already in the range for shared custody arrangements. Obviously by most measures the kids already have joint residency. The initial temporary support order already reflected this.

-You're seeking 1 additional day (Thursday) and overnights on Sunday. Your ability to sell this will depend on having a good parenting plan. Why do you want this change? What can you offer that would better the situation for the children? Unless you have very compelling reasons the judge will almost definitely ignore this request.

-You're claiming your income is zero or close, but how are you living? Where do all your children sleep when they are with you? How are you providing food, clothes, necessities, utilities, transportation and shelter for them on your time?

-I have not seen the wording on your temporary support order, but temporary means the order is in effect until a new order is issued. You may very well be in contempt of the order.

-Not really sure why the ex didn't submit the order to FRO for collections.

-Child support in shared custody is complicated as I've learned. It has been argued before that because initially your ex received support from you, her lifestyle and that of the children were based on that amount of income. She rented a place presumably, maybe acquired a cheap vehicle.

-Suddenly, despite the court order, the support completely stopped. Since then your ex may have struggled to maintain the standard of living for the children. This is evidenced by her return to work in short order.

-Are you familiar with the concept of the "cliff effect" in shared custody support orders? Judges do not much like it when a small change in custody results in a large change in support. As such, because of the initial support order requiring you to pay her, it is likely that you will continue to be ordered to pay her in order to maintain the status quo.

-If you successfully argue a reduction in CS based on section 9, you should be prepared that it will not be much of a reduction if any. It remains unlikely to me that you will ever cease being a payor because of the initial order.

-If you have been unemployed for a long time, what is stopping you from getting jobs outside of the union? Full time minimum wage is available to everyone and you are required to support your children.

I realize a lot of what I am saying might seem unfair, unjust and probably smacks of a certain gender bias. However it's the kind of reality you will face.

And you said you're not worried about costs... you should be worried about paying HER costs. With your 16k income it will take you the rest of your life to pay off 30k-50k in legal fees you will be ordered to pay. Plus child support. All done through FRO most likely.

[FightingForFamily]

One addendum:

From what I've seen, you will need to demonstrate in great detail with a full financial statement and budget, plus a more detailed itemized budget for all the children's expenses that you currently pay (while in your care and otherwise) exactly how the situation works and why a change is required.

Evidence, evidence, evidence.

I would still be seeking to settle out of court were I you. Based on your fancy charts of time with the kids you may be able to argue section 9 outside of court, but odds are you will only be able to do by agreeing to a certain amount of arrears (based on your 16k estimate for this time period) and probably by paying some support going forward.

[FamilyBlah]

Thank you FightingForFamily! This is very helpful!!!!!

You're very verbose, I liked the cliff notes version

-Not taking immediate legal action and waiting 3 years amounts to giving implicit consent for the situation to continue. Even if you were grumpy about it, you did not take action until 3 years later and everyone will want to know why now.

-Obvious answer is that you're broke and seeking financial assistance.

- yes, can't afford a lawyer
- didn't have the knowledge I do now about Family Law
- recently diagnosed with Adult ADD
- attending mood and anxiety group sessions
- I have stated from Day 1 that I believe Shared Custody is in the best interests of the children.
- I have continuously stated that I do not agree with the Applicant's restrictions of the children's access to their father, stepmother, stepsister and stepbrothers.
- I have repeatedly stated that I do not agree with the schedule the Applicant has unilaterally created.
- I think this is more than being "grumpy"
- I submit there has never been any implied consent and the Applicant has been made aware of this on numerous occasions since April 1, 2009.
- I have attempted to avoid Court as much as possible as everything I've heard and read states that court should be a last resort.
- I have requested mediation, collaborative law, arbitration and my requests have been ignored by the Applicant and her lawyer.
- I intended to do things right once to avoid putting my children through any more than they have already been through.

-Nothing you have provided gives support that the status quo is based on deceit and lies.

-Whatever abuse allegations were made seem larely irrelevant. CAS has not become involved, nor you have been charged. You haven't mentioned any police reports. Thus this is easy to set aside.

- the Applicant secured a Dr's note March 23, 2009 stating that she was unable to work in her field due to health reasons
- the Applicant quit her job on March 30, 2009.
- The Applicant removed the children from the matrimonial home on April 1, 2009 while I was at work.
- The Applicant went to a women's shelter claiming abuse
- There is no evidence to support these claims
- CAS did come into interview me and then called back sometime later to inform me that they had no concerns.
- Even if the Applicant's claims were true, that does not mean she had to remove the children from their home. The children were in no danger. The Applicant could have left the house on her own if she did not feel safe.
- the Applicant's Affidavit's are filled with inaccuracies, misleading statements and outright lies.

-Nothing you have provided indicates she has restricted access unreasonably. You still have your kids 40% of the time. This is already in the range for shared custody arrangements. Obviously by most measures the kids already have joint residency. The initial temporary support order already reflected this.

- my ex has since learned about the 40% threshold and the affect it can have on child support. She now makes sure to limit the access to less than 40%.
- one example of her actions occurred when the children were supposed to come to my house for one of their stepbrothers' birthdays. The Applicant agreed to this and then took it away. The Applicant also refused to allow the children to come to my house on a Tuesday for their Stepmom's birthday.

-You're seeking 1 additional day (Thursday) and overnights on Sunday. Your ability to sell this will depend on having a good parenting plan. Why do you want this change? What can you offer that would better the situation for the children? Unless you have very compelling reasons the judge will almost definitely ignore this request.

- I am working on/tweaking my parenting plan. It will cover all the bases.
- The schedule I am proposing maximizes the children's contact with each parent. It also allows the 50/50 sharing of the different quality of time...i.e. weekend time will be shared equally as will weekday time. It also provides stability and consistency. It also removes any need for face-to-face contact between the parties during dropoffs and pickups.
- the current situation feeds conflict as the Applicant has not been reasonable and continues to be unreasonable.
- "The judge will also apply the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is in the child's best interest. In applying this principle, the court will consider the willingness of each parent to take on parental responsibilities and to support the child's relationship with the other parent."
- I believe the courts will also consider the Applicant's willingness to facilitate the children's relationships with their stepmom and step siblings.
- The Applicant has stated (in email) that the stepmother is not welcome on her property and "can say her goodbyes in the van."
- The Applicant has stated that the stepmom is not welcome at medical appointments or school meetings.
- The Applicant has not "owned" her case at all.
- The Applicant has made a number of unilateral decisions since the date of the separation...ex/ she changed the children's school in the fall of 2009 to a school closer to where she was granted subsidized housing.

-You're claiming your income is zero or close, but how are you living? Where do all your children sleep when they are with you? How are you providing food, clothes, necessities, utilities, transportation and shelter for them on your time?

- I currently make minimum wage and work 20-25 hours per week. I claimed my income was zero on October 25, 2010 when I was asked by the Applicant.
- the children sleep in their beds. My daughter (9) has her own room, my daughter (6) and my stepdaughter (6) share a room with bunkbeds and my son (7) shares a room with his two stepbrothers (7 and 9)...there are two sets of bunkbeds in their room.
- my current spouse (common law) has a job
- we are behind on bills, but the children's needs are being met as best as we can.
- the Applicant makes an estimated $40,000.00 per year.

[FamilyBlah]

-I have not seen the wording on your temporary support order, but temporary means the order is in effect until a new order is issued. You may very well be in contempt of the order.

-Not really sure why the ex didn't submit the order to FRO for collections.

- the judge at the Oct 15, 2009 Case Conference saw that i was earning $40,000 and my ex wasn't earning anything so she ordered me to pay $773 per month for support of the 3 children. This was to be expected.

- this child support order was terminated by another Order on October 13, 2011

- the order from October 15, 2009 also stated that the parties should exchange income information within 30 days of the 1-year anniversary of the order as long as support was being paid. I provided my info on October 25, 2010. The Applicant did not provide any income information.

- I believe you are incorrect in your belief that a temporary order means the order is in effect until a new order is issued.

- In the Quadrology decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2006..."The Court noted that parents have an obligation to support their children commensurate with their income and that this obligation exists independently of any statute or court order."

- the Applicant did submit the Order to FRO and they began the process of taking away my license.

- at the Settlement Conference on March 7, 2012, the Applicant agreed to unilaterally withdraw the order from FRO. She has since threatened to re-file it. The Support order is based on the issue of arrears and the Applicant's lies and misleading evidence. I am unclear how they are permitted to do this as Arrears is an issue yet to be decided by the Court in this case.

-Child support in shared custody is complicated as I've learned. It has been argued before that because initially your ex received support from you, her lifestyle and that of the children were based on that amount of income. She rented a place presumably, maybe acquired a cheap vehicle.

-Suddenly, despite the court order, the support completely stopped. Since then your ex may have struggled to maintain the standard of living for the children. This is evidenced by her return to work in short order.

- the Applicant moved into subsidized housing just prior to the Order dated October 15, 2009
- I began paying $773 per month for child support
- the Applicant returned to work (not sure if she got the Dr's clearance) sometime in early 2010. She did not inform me of her return to work nor did she inform me of her new income (since found out it was $37,000.00)
- from the unknown date of her return to work to October 2010, the Applicant was receiving $773 in child support, her salary from her new job (with old employer), CCTB, Universal Baby Bonus, etc...She was also living in subsidized housing. She received a used van as a gift from her family.
- I am the one who has struggled to maintain the standard of living for the children. In essence, the child support my current spouse receives from her ex for their three children is being spread out to support all 6 children.

-Are you familiar with the concept of the "cliff effect" in shared custody support orders? Judges do not much like it when a small change in custody results in a large change in support. As such, because of the initial support order requiring you to pay her, it is likely that you will continue to be ordered to pay her in order to maintain the status quo.

-If you successfully argue a reduction in CS based on section 9, you should be prepared that it will not be much of a reduction if any. It remains unlikely to me that you will ever cease being a payor because of the initial order.

- I was not familiar with the "cliff effect"...THANK YOU!
- there is currently no support order in place. We have been sharing most expenses 50/50 since I lost my job in October 2010.
- there is no custody order either
- "The legal basis of child maintenance is the parents' mutual obligation to support their children according to their need. That obligation should be borne by the parents in proportion to their respective incomes and ability to pay." Paras v. Paras [1971]

-If you have been unemployed for a long time, what is stopping you from getting jobs outside of the union? Full time minimum wage is available to everyone and you are required to support your children.

I realize a lot of what I am saying might seem unfair, unjust and probably smacks of a certain gender bias. However it's the kind of reality you will face.

- BOTH parents are required to support their children!

And you said you're not worried about costs... you should be worried about paying HER costs. With your 16k income it will take you the rest of your life to pay off 30k-50k in legal fees you will be ordered to pay. Plus child support. All done through FRO most likely.

- I have been the (much) more reasonable party in this matter.
- I have tried to negotiate and settle without wasting the courts time and money
- I have made offers to settle, they have not
- With a 16k income, it could be argued that an order to pay 30k-50k would result in hardship.
- I'm unclear why there is an assumption that I will be paying child support.

[FightingForFamily]

I'll address more tomorrow, but:

-Why are temporary orders issued during a divorce?

Temporary Divorce Court Orders – Why are Temporary Orders Issued During Divorce

-You ceased paying any support which was an incredibly bad decision. You have been quoting in several posts about how parents should be supporting their children even in the absence of an order.

-I believe I've already outlined reasons why I think you would be ordered to pay support:

a) The temporary order.
b) The fact that you unilaterally stopped paying support completely and never resumed.
c) The cliff effect that would harm the standard of living at the mother's home because of 3 years of status quo.

-The section 9 dealing with shared custody for adjusting child support has shown in my reading that going from non-shared to shared never rarely in the expected adjustment to child support amounts because it is too much of a reversal. Too extreme, and judges almost never make rulings in the extreme. They favour neutral, subtle, middle of the road solutions that make neither party happy.

For example, this case is cited hundreds of times:

Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63

CanLII - 2005 SCC 63 (CanLII)

Despite an offset amount of only $128, the dad is still order to pay $500.

[FamilyBlah]

I'll address more tomorrow, but:

-Why are temporary orders issued during a divorce?

Temporary Divorce Court Orders – Why are Temporary Orders Issued During Divorce

-You ceased paying any support which was an incredibly bad decision. You have been quoting in several posts about how parents should be supporting their children even in the absence of an order.

-I believe I've already outlined reasons why I think you would be ordered to pay support:

a) The temporary order.
b) The fact that you unilaterally stopped paying support completely and never resumed.
c) The cliff effect that would harm the standard of living at the mother's home because of 3 years of status quo.

-The section 9 dealing with shared custody for adjusting child support has shown in my reading that going from non-shared to shared never rarely in the expected adjustment to child support amounts because it is too much of a reversal. Too extreme, and judges almost never make rulings in the extreme. They favour neutral, subtle, middle of the road solutions that make neither party happy.

For example, this case is cited hundreds of times:

Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63

CanLII - 2005 SCC 63 (CanLII)

Despite an offset amount of only $128, the dad is still order to pay $500.

Your link to why temporary orders are made during a divorce seems largely irrelevant to my case.

"A temporary court order is used to keep the status quo from the time the divorce is filed until a final divorce settlement agreement is negotiated."

How does this imply that I am the one responsible for paying child support?

The temporary order for child support in my case was made October 2009 when my income was $40,000 and my ex's income was $0.00.

Have you taken the time to read my previous replies?

There is no Cliff Effect.

I stopped making child support payments and began sharing at least 50/50 in the children's expenses (not just section 9) when I was wrongfully dismissed in October 2010. At that time, my income was $0.00 and my ex's was $37,000.

"The Court noted that parents have an obligation to support their children commensurate with their income and that this obligation exists independently of any statute or court order."

"The judge will also apply the principle that a child should have as much contact with each parent as is in the child's best interest. In applying this principle, the court will consider the willingness of each parent to take on parental responsibilities and to support the child's relationship with the other parent."

"[23] The Supreme Court observed that when the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 came into effect in the spring of 1997, they provided a “simplified way” for parents and the courts to quantify child support obligations. The implication of the approach taken by the Child Support Guidelines was described by the Court as “profound.” “Except for situations of shared custody” the Court noted “a parent’s increased income would not only increase his share of the child support burden but also it will increase the total amount of support owed.” “The underlying theory of the Guidelines”, the Court observed “was that the support obligation itself should fluctuate depending on a parent’s income” (see paragraph 45 of the decision)."

[winterwolf7]

I know in an ideal world it would all work out that she owes you support now and going forward and possibly arrears, but the courts don't operate that way at all. They don't make drastic changes to situations for the most part, and changes they make are usually awful middle of the road decisions that make no one happy.

Can you find me a Canlii case where a Dad went from paying CS, to shared custody and started to receive CS instead? Check out WorkingDads case, it's one of the most popular cases here obviously. WorkingDad went from barely seeing his son to having Sole Custody, with eventual 50/50 time sharing with his ex. And yet he was still ordered to pay full table amount CS to his ex despite it being him with custody. In fact his CS was adjusted upwards from the original order.

You have shared custody that's the most important part... your kids. However I think you are probably going to lose badly on the child support front. I'm not a lawyer or judge, it's just my considered opinion. I've already clearly stated that no one will accept a grown man having an income of zero for several years, who then tries to take his ex to court to get support from her. They will try to paint you as a dead beat dad and they might succeed.

You are an adult, you can work, and you're not... you haven't been, and you haven't produced any compelling arguments why not. You are NOT supporting your children and the courts will ensure that you do.

[winterwolf7]

When your income dropped you should have filed a motion to change to modify the temporary support order at that time in order to fix child support 2 years ago. You did have a material change and grounds to have a new order drafted, but you didn't.

Instead you stopped paying support. Whether or not the order is fair or not is irrelevant. It was still a court order and until you have a new support order it is fully in effect.

Who is paying for everything for your kids if they spend 40% of the time with your new family? It is not step mom's responsibility to shoulder your financial responsibility for your kids and that really sounds like what has been going on.

[winterwolf7]

When is your motions date for these matters? I'm curious to see how you fare.