Negotiating Child Support

[treegirl97]

The stbx and I are having issues with child support amounts. He has told me that he cannot afford to pay the table amount of support. I know his income and expenses and I know his claim is not with justification. He has offered to pay me a monthly amount that is $200 less than the table amount.

Can I agree to accept this lower amount without it coming back to bite me in the future? Or should I insist he pay me the entire amount and who cares about the consequences for him?

[Tayken]

The stbx and I are having issues with child support amounts. He has told me that he cannot afford to pay the table amount of support. I know his income and expenses and I know his claim is not with justification. He has offered to pay me a monthly amount that is $200 less than the table amount.

Can I agree to accept this lower amount without it coming back to bite me in the future? Or should I insist he pay me the entire amount and who cares about the consequences for him?

1. Child Support is set in stone on the table amounts.
2. The other parent who wants the adjustment can request consideration under the guide lines for a different amount to be ordered but, good luck on that one.
3. Child support is the *RIGHT OF THE CHILD* not that of the paying or receiving parent.

The courts will enforce the table amount as it is in your child's "best interests" that they be supported properly. You should too as their parent. The fact the other parent doesn't want to account to their responsibility to support their child speaks volumes to the court.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[arabian]

My ex always tells me he can't afford anything. It's a lie.

Your ex's inability to manage his money is not your problem.

Don't be a sucker.

[Teenwolf]

My ex always tells me he can't afford anything. It's a lie.

Your ex's inability to manage his money is not your problem.

Don't be a sucker.

Very true! We hear the same thing all the time from the GF's ex, but it's a pile of lies.

[hadenough]

My globetrotting, sports car driving, home renovating self-employed ex often cries broke. Cry me a river... He's BROKEN -- he's not broke.

Sorry, I just don't buy the "I'm broke" song and dance. All good advice up above. The CS guidelines, as Tayken pointed out are written in STONE.

[NBDad]

are written in STONE.

IF you go before the court over it. You CAN always agree to a lower amount if necessary. CS is one of those things that is NOT set in stone and can ALWAYS be reopened. I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second.

Is that $200/month really worth pursuing? You know your ex better than we do. Is being forced into paying that extra amount going to lead to issues or with him trying to dodge paying? If you can get him to agree to an amicable amount, and therefore get him to pony it up willingly, it could very well be worthwhile for you to agree to a lower amount, at least initially.

I suggest the following for your consideration:

1. that you agree to the lower amount for a preset period of time (say 6 month to a year) to "allow him to get his financial situation in order".

2. That you ALSO include the fact that this is a temporary reduction, and effective July 1, 2013, and every year thereafter, that CS is adjusted annually, and calculated based on the CS tables.

Alternately, would maybe doing something different with that $200/month be easier for him to swallow? You could always (again for a short period of time) agree to the lower amount, with the stipulation that he deposit the $200 difference into an RESP for the child instead and provide periodic proof of those deposits.

My point is, IF you pursue things through the courts, the table amounts are what he will pay. However, you can always agree to a lower amount if you want to, and other factors considered it may be worthwhile to do so to keep things amicable. You DO have other choices with respect to those funds, that may make it more palatable to him.

How old is the child? Is there anything the child enjoys doing/etc that you can perhaps get him to pick up the full cost on in exchange? (Ie. Hockey, a cell phone, car insurance, etc?) Those are some examples of things that can cost a fair bit, and if he's paying it directly and can see that it's FOR the child, it might be an easier pill to swallow.

Get creative.

[shellshocked22]

A few thoughts on CS for what it's worth (likely not much lol). I think most payors (and let's be realistic the bulk of the time its the male) have issues with CS for two reasons...

a) they really do have difficulties paying the required amount

b) for higher income earners, the "CS" is ridiculously high. That is, does a toddler REALLY need thousands of dollars every month; enough to rent a luxury appt and a BMW ?

With respect to b), let's face it, CS is REALLY disguised spousal support but without the tax break.

Do most people REALLY believe that all of it is spent on the "child" or is it squandered by the recipient spouse. I'm so sick of the "assumption" that mothers are perfect and would never take a dime of "CS" for their own selfish purposes like going out to bars and taking vacations for themselves. I'm not saying the kids are starving and wearing rags, merely that likely 50% of CS goes to the recipient parent and NOT the kids.

Again, I'm referring to instances where CS is ludicrous, as in thousands of dollars every month for small children. I think most high income earners are fine with helping their KIDS, but not an ungrateful ex spouse who has problems managing money.

Over a certain threshold, excess CS should be MANDATED to say be put into a locked in RESP for the benefit of the child. But, oh wait, mothers are "perfect" and we couldn't "discriminate" against them. I'm sure the child will agree when they are old enough and there is no money for them to go to school since mommy blew through the cash and dad is now broke and unable to help them.

If its really for the "good of the child" why isn't there any requirements to enforce such a philosophy.

Also, can you imagine the backlash if the govt decided to "audit" married families and require a "minimum" payment towards the children each month. Maybe mandating wealthier families to force them to take the kids to Disney land each month.

Also, is spoiling a child , giving him/her everything they want and showering them with expensive gifts a good thing anyway ? Everything in family law seems to come down to MONEY. Does that mean that a poor family are lousy parents since they don't shower the kids with expensive trinkets ?

[OrleansLawyer]

Can I agree to accept this lower amount without it coming back to bite me in the future? Or should I insist he pay me the entire amount and who cares about the consequences for him?

You can agree to whatever you like. If you believe it would increase family harmony and improve your child's relationship with their father then that is a value judgment you need to make.

This being said, separations put a financial strain on everyone involved. You are attempting to support two households with the funding that once supported one. Of course he will feel financially pinched - he is struggling to maintain a comparable standard of living with fewer resources.

Child support is the right of the child. He should be settling his finances to account for the child support he should be paying. Notwithstanding undue hardship or other exceptional circumstances, obtaining guideline support for the primary caregiver is one of the easiest things to accomplish in family law.

[OrleansLawyer]

a) they really do have difficulties paying the required amount

Child support is a fair portion, particularly for those in a higher tax bracket, but still leaves the payor with considerable earnings. They need to adjust their finances accordingly. Someone with 80k after tax dollars being reduced to 65k should live like anyone else with a 65k after tax income.

b) for higher income earners, the "CS" is ridiculously high. That is, does a toddler REALLY need thousands of dollars every month; enough to rent a luxury appt and a BMW ?

There are a lot of trappings that accompany high income. If your parents earn six figures then it is not unreasonable to have your own spacious bedroom, a nanny/tutor, be driven to school in a Mercedes instead of a Hyundai, et cetera.

Does this improve the standard of living of the primary caregiver? Of course. For very young children, presumably the higher child support pays for a nicer house and car from which the children are able to grow into greater needs. Caregiving parents may feel short changed when the children grow into teenagers and consume substantially more than the child support is able to provide; if support has been paid since infancy, you could consider this to be a balance.

Also, is spoiling a child , giving him/her everything they want and showering them with expensive gifts a good thing anyway ?

It is not necessarily expensive gifts. Instances of a high quanta of child support being paid indicate the child should have a high standard of living. This may reduce the number of activities that fall into s.7 expenses. Living well costs money.

Does that mean that a poor family are lousy parents since they don't shower the kids with expensive trinkets ?

Different standards of living for different families. If your child was born into a family with a net income of 150k then they can reasonably expect amenities beyond that of a child born into a family with a net income of 50k.

[dad2bandm]

Parents can agree to anything they want...unfortunately, most never agree.

If you ever go the court route, the courts will just use the table amount, as that is what they have to use, by law. You`re at court, because you do not agree.

I have both situations. I have one child, where Mom and I have come up with our own agreement, and that is what I pay to her. It's what we wanted to do, and works for us. We are both adults, and try to act like that when it comes to parenting. We've been doing this for many years. We also split on other costs. So it can be done, if both parents are going to be mature about their parenting roles.

I also have the other situation. I have a child where Mom and I do not get along at all (hence, my postings on this forum...lol). There are not two mature, parents in that case. Because her and I do not get along, I have always paid the CS table amounts, without question, even way before `court`was ever in the picture. I`ve increased the support without question, as I get raises and such. It hasn`t stopped her from trying to claim that I owe her back-support, and that I`m not paying the support I should be, but I am, so I`ve protected myself, but following the table amounts in this case.

NBDad had some good suggestions for you, which could help, if you`re both willing to entertain them. If you aren`t going to get along with your ex, or you both aren`t mature, then you`re both better off just following the table amounts.

[shellshocked22]

With all due respect to OrleansLawyer (who I feel provides outstanding input by the way) "fair" is a relative term.

As he noted, an ex whose hard working spouse generates higher income has a "right" to drive the child to school in a luxury car. Call me crazy, but I would submit that driving an economy car and putting the money towards the child's benefit (perhaps something as frivalous as post secondary education fund) would be "in the best interests of the child".

As noted, in that example "CS" is indeed disguised spousal support.

Also, people seem to forget that as a rule of thumb, higher income often equals MORE EFFORT AND MORE WORK. So, rather than spending time with the kids, Daddy is working late at night and weekends to pay for outrageous CS so Mommy can drive a Mercedes. Yeah, that sounds like it helps the child.....

Why do so many people feel its "fair" to PUNISH a hardworking high income parent when arguably the funds go to help the recipient parent and NOT the child !!!!!

Shouldn't we ENCOURAGE people to work hard and not punish them for their extra work ???

[OrleansLawyer]

I would submit that driving an economy car and putting the money towards the child's benefit (perhaps something as frivalous as post secondary education fund) would be "in the best interests of the child".

It would be. However, the current state of the law is for the child to be privileged to drive in a nicer car - along with the social status that comes with it - and receive further support for post secondary expenses.

people seem to forget that as a rule of thumb, higher income often equals MORE EFFORT AND MORE WORK. So, rather than spending time with the kids, Daddy is working late at night and weekends to pay for outrageous CS so Mommy can drive a Mercedes.

Without making any value judgments, I will comment that this type of situation causes considerable disgruntlement for the payor, particularly in cases of long term marriages where the recipient is not likely to re-enter the workforce.

Some people hold the opinion that this is a result of strong lobbyists favouring women's rights and opposing the feminization of poverty. Others balance the grief of the payor against the higher social status enjoyed by the child which, statistically, leads to higher future earnings and lower crime rates.

Why do so many people feel its "fair" to PUNISH a hardworking high income parent when arguably the funds go to help the recipient parent and NOT the child !!!!!

It is acknowledged that while the funds inevitably benefit the recipient parent they also benefit the child.

[Berner_Faith]

It would be. However, the current state of the law is for the child to be privileged to drive in a nicer car - along with the social status that comes with it - and receive further support for post secondary expenses.

Seriously!? A child driving a nice car is important because of the "social status"? You have to be kidding me... my parents make over $100k annually and they NEVER bought me a car, nor did the contribute a vast majority to my post secondary. I was taught to WORK for the things you want and if I wanted a car for school, I had to WORK and buy it. The fact that divorced parents are FORCED to buy crap for their kids is outrageous! The fact that they are expected to put their kids through school is outrageous as well... what if the parents were together? Would anyone force them to buy a car and put their children through post secondary?

[TiredOfTheDrama]

One thing no one has touched on... how is it fair that the CS payor can afford to drive a Mercedes and the receiver can only afford an economy car. While the payor works hard and is able to work OT, travel, take additional courses to further their carreer the receiver in many cases works just as hard but can not do all the 'extra's' so they can be available for the child. Yes, it's the receiver's choice to be available for the child but this can cause an inequality issue in the eyes of a child that see's that one parent lifestyle is more 'cushy' than the others.

Just another side of the coin ...

[hadenough]

Great points BF and TofTheDrama!

My ex drives luxury cars, is in arrears, cancels access weekends and I drive an older car that I can barely afford to keep gas in. Yeah: status alright. My ass.

Can we all say "DISPARITY in Lifestyle(s)??"