50/50 custody and Extra Payments

[lemontree]

If we have a 50/50 custody agreement and are paying the child support based on guildline. Does the higher income parent have to pay more for extra carricular activities? Such as a 60-40 cost split?
What if the costs are not something used by the higher income parent.

Ie. We have 50/50 custody based on one week with us, one week with her etc..
She requires daycare and we don't. Are we still required to pay 60 of the cost for daycare that we don't use? only on her week.

[Mess]

As far as daycare, yes, the daycare is for the child and you split the expense in proportion to your incomes. This clearly written into the legislation, you don't really have any wiggle rooom.

[billiechic]

Unless you can provide care for the child at the times she needs daycare. You could offer it, but she is not obligated to accept it. Does save you both money though!

[MiViLaLoco]

In another thread you state the mother is not working. If that is the case...how is her income determined?

[davidm]

If you have first right of refusl in your agreement can you refuse to pay for the others daycare if she won't let me have the children at that time?

[lemontree]

She quit work and decided to go back to school when they split so she has OSAP.

[lemontree]

I can't help but think this sytem is a little flawed... We have our step son half the time, yet we have to pay her, and pay more for what he does (even if we don't need it) when my husband has worked for years to get to the salary he is at... She decided to quit work and take up being a student so our support increase.. ridiculous.. I would love to go back to school, but I have my own child and finanical responsibilities, coupled with what we pay her-- and wait I don't have an ex i can finacially rely on.. Not to mention her boyfriend of 3 years makes 6 figures and they are off on vacations 5 times a year (not one of which they have brought her son on) .. Oh and the whole mobility thing I mentioned before, is because hes buying them a mansion in the west end... Syystem Flawed. Sorry for the rant but it's just one thing after the next..

[lemontree]

If the courts are looking out for the best intrest of the children, The should instill some system to ensure the support money given to the recieving parent is actually being spent to support the child.

[HammerDad]

I can't help but think this sytem is a little flawed... We have our step son half the time, yet we have to pay her, and pay more for what he does (even if we don't need it) when my husband has worked for years to get to the salary he is at... She decided to quit work and take up being a student so our support increase.. ridiculous.. I would love to go back to school, but I have my own child and finanical responsibilities, coupled with what we pay her-- and wait I don't have an ex i can finacially rely on.. Not to mention her boyfriend of 3 years makes 6 figures and they are off on vacations 5 times a year (not one of which they have brought her son on) .. Oh and the whole mobility thing I mentioned before, is because hes buying them a mansion in the west end... Syystem Flawed. Sorry for the rant but it's just one thing after the next..

Her unilateral decision to go back to school should not affect the amount c/s either parent is obligated to pay or s7 expenses.

I would simply state that she has an obligation to provide for the children. Her choice to return to school does not circumvent this obligation. In situations like this the courts have done 1 of 2 things. Either:

a. imputed an income to the parent equal to the level they are capable of making or were making prior to their decision to leave the work force; or

b. use the households income as their income as their needs to be some income to support themselves and the child. If that is through a new spouse, then that spouses income would be used for c/s and s7 purposes.

But she can't say "I am going back to school so I now have an income of $0.00". The courts don't allow that.

There were actually a few cases in the past 6-7 years that are on point with this (going back to school and claiming a reduced income) and the courts rebuffed that parents decision and imputed an income to them equal to what they made before.

[lemontree]

I should correct myself.. She was working on contract and the contract never renued so she claimes. She applied for EI and thats the salary our support is based on. Sat on EI for a year and Instead of seeking another job, she decided to become a student. So there was a significant decrease in the income and increase in our support.

[HammerDad]

I should correct myself.. She was working on contract and the contract never renued so she claimes. She applied for EI and thats the salary our support is based on. Sat on EI for a year and Instead of seeking another job, she decided to become a student. So there was a significant decrease in the income and increase in our support.

Irrelevent. She is capable of earning an income.

She likely has some marketable skill. You go on workopolis and find what someone with her skills and experience is capable of making. You then propose that her income be imputed to such level or the level she was making prior to contract expiring.

At worst, you impute an income to her equal to full time minimum wage as if she has a McJob.

She cannot claim she doesn't make any money. There has to be money coming into the house to pay the bills. Either she is earning it or someone is supplying it on her behalf.

If she is claiming $0, pay c/s off of either what she made before or full time min wage. But don't base it off of $0.

[HammerDad]

Here is the main case that is referenced:

CanLII - 2002 CanLII 41868 (ON CA)

[Mess]

Just worth pointing out that in the case cited, Drygala v. Pauli, the imputed income was not the full time wage the party was earning before entering school.

The judge imputed 50% of the previous wage, on the basis that 3 classes and associated study time would amount to about 20 hours a week, and the imputed amount would thus represent the possibility of working the other 20 hours.

IMHO the party left themselves wide open by claiming no income, and not providing a reasonable argument about what they could potentially have earned. The party had been a tool and dye maker, most factories don't hire people on for a few hours a week, they expect full time availability and overtime. The party could have shown with only part time availability, their potential to be hired was limited. They didn't make that argument, leaving it to the judge to concoct a formula.

The court decisions accepted that persuing an education was a reasonable course of action, and they accepted that this limited employability and income. The issue left open, and what would have to be decided case-by-case, is what a particular individual, in a particular location, could reasonably expect for part-time employment based on their individual skill set. Again, the parties have to put forward arguments and some factual evidence to support it, else the judge is going to simplify and create a formula.