Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Negotiating Child Support

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OrleansLawyer
    replied
    If you are negotiating outside of a court room, you can most definitely agree to a lesser amount of child support.
    This is true. If the parties are amicable it is not unheard of for them to make their own arrangements as far as child support goes. The most common case is with equal access, the parties come up with a number instead of using offset guideline support.

    However, since Guideline support is an all but certainty at court, doing so is entirely unnecessary. Most family lawyers regard Guideline support as a fact of life rather than an issue to discuss.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by NBDad View Post
    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.
    Applying your own logic to the argument. Should the parties in an out of court settlement agree to a lower amount of CS, a judge is well within their rights to order the table amounts and in a retroactive manner. To make a any order below the table amount takes an incredible amount of evidence to support. Case law for which lower amounts than the guideline CS is ordered are incredibly complex cases and the other party would probably have to make a claim for unjust enrichment, etc...

    Unless the other party fits the condition of the 1% of times where CS is ordered to a lower amount of table support... I would recommend to hold your ground on the matter... Especially if the other party is unrepresented and there is no lawyer on the other side advising them as to what conditions a lower amount of CS can be ordered on.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:


  • frustratedwithex
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
    It is very hard to sign away the rights of the child by either parent.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken
    If you are negotiating outside of a court room, you can most definitely agree to a lesser amount of child support.

    If it is not that much different than the table amount, why not agree to it and stay out of court?

    If both parties are being reasonable, this can be done. Not every divorce is high conflict. It can always be re-negotiated when income information is exchanged.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
    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.
    Just to highlight the only elements for which a court will order non-table amount child support. Very rare situations.

    Furthermore, should both parties agree to a lower child support amount and the receiving parent go back to court... You could be paying the outstanding arrears because "child support is the right of the child".

    It is very hard to sign away the rights of the child by either parent.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:


  • murphyslaw
    replied
    Originally posted by slughead10 View Post
    the person does all bills paid and food and clothing or is that stuff free these days?
    If you hired a live in Nanny just to mind the kids you would have to pay for food anyway and still pay a weekly wage .Of course many smart men do support their wife in upgrading their education, and re-entering the work force, prior to dropping the d-bomb.That way she is actually able to support herself.Its a newer trend in divorce.

    Leave a comment:


  • arabian
    replied
    Slughead - if you don't believe in SS then the person who stays home with the kids should receive a salary from the working spouse and also have the opportunity to pay into a pension plan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rioe
    replied
    Originally posted by slughead10 View Post
    and that ends when you get divorced
    I believe the legal marriage terms are until death. Not divorce. Marriage should really be a series of five year contracts or something!

    Leave a comment:


  • OrleansLawyer
    replied
    and that ends when you get divorced
    Not according to the laws as related to marriage in Ontario.

    Leave a comment:


  • OrleansLawyer
    replied
    a person should be responsible for themselves.
    They are. That's why you are expected to fulfill the obligations of the agreement you signed by getting married.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mess
    replied
    Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
    Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?
    When I buy shares in Apple, they don't increase in value or pay dividends according to my education or job skills. I have a proportionate share in the corporation, and I get a proportionate share in the profits, and I get a proportionate share of value of the firm when I sell.

    A marriage is a financial partnership. If you don't want that, don't get married. You have signed a contract that your partner has a 50% share in the total of what you both are able to contribute over the years. That includes a share in the long-term value of your career.

    If you don't get the issue of future value, when I sell my Apple shares, I'm selling based on how well I know the company is GOING to do, that is part of the value.

    This is just an analogy, I'm sure we could pick it apart, but the point is that a partnership isn't the same as hiring a housekeeper. Your career is part of your assets (just ask the bank manager when you want a bigger mortgage) and that value can be part of what is shared.

    The way it is shared is called spousal support. If our education and careers were assessed and given net values and this was split through equalization maybe it wouldn't cause so much bitterness.

    No, it probably would still cause bitterness.

    Leave a comment:


  • caranna
    replied
    Sounds like shellshocked22 is one of those people who are simmering in their own bitter stew. That's a very sad and destructive way to live.

    Leave a comment:


  • OrleansLawyer
    replied
    Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?
    1 - Whatever they were doing before, they could have sought a better career but for the relationship.

    2 - It isn't just their loss, but also the gain from the payor parent. But for their contribution to the household, the working parent would have been home more and thus been behind in their career.

    Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?
    You have entered into a financial union with someone. Why should the courts deprive either party of the consequences of their decision? You are always able to show an intention to the contrary through domestic contracts.

    Leave a comment:


  • blinkandimgone
    replied
    Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
    To our esteemed moderators comment...

    Why is it always assumed the "stay at home" parent gave up a promising career as a brain surgeon ? Let's "assume" that the stay at home parent had no post secondary education (years before having kids) and to be blunt would always have a low paying job. Doesn't matter how many years of seniority at a McJob you'll never make 6 figures.

    So, if the stay at home parent, to be blunt, enjoyed a MUCH better lifestyle than he/she ever would have on their own while married, and didn't "lose" earning potential/seniority of any significance, then please explain why they are entitled to be a parasite for decades off the hard working spouse.

    Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?

    Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?

    Interesting that you assume the opposite: that a CS recipient is an unemplyed mooch who is living off their former spouse. If one spouse contributed to the career advancement of the other and made it possible for them to advance in their career while taking a hit on their own career potential then yes, it is an unfair disadvantage to them.

    Why is it you assume that all CS recipients or stay at home parents are mooching off the payor? Bitter much?

    Leave a comment:


  • TiredOfTheDrama
    replied
    Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
    I get a kick when I see the "recipient" spouse whining about how the "payor" spouse has a better lifestyle than them. I'll let you in on a little "secret" on how you can enjoy the same thing... It's called GET a F****** JOB !!!!!

    Some people's sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze me. Amazing how divorce brings out the parasite in some people....
    Wow! Maybe you need to learn how to comprehend what you read.

    In many cases the recipient has a job (I for example am in the same field as my x). I am a few years behind him in work experience because we had decided I'd stay at home and raise the children (Take Note: this was so he would have the flexibility to further his career without worrying about the daily children's needs)

    I have had to limit my chances to advance to the same extent due to being available for the child. I'm the one who takes off to take them to Dr's appointments or when they are sick or wanted a parent to accompany on school field trips. I didn't have every evening free to take night classes because evenings are spent shuttling the children to the activities such as sparks, soccer, etc or helping with homework, baths (when they were younger), etc then laundry and maintaining the home doesn't leave much time to study & staying up late is not an option when in the morning you have to get up, get ready, then get the children ready for school with breakfast eaten,lunches made & a plan for dinner all before getting them on the bus or to day care, all of which is done before you put in a full 8 hour day. I can't just travel at a moments notice or work Over Time unless I have made arrangements ahead of time.

    So please tell me again how I'm not pulling my weight and how I should be grateful for a any CS he deems is sufficient.

    Leave a comment:


  • shellshocked22
    replied
    To our esteemed moderators comment...

    Why is it always assumed the "stay at home" parent gave up a promising career as a brain surgeon ? Let's "assume" that the stay at home parent had no post secondary education (years before having kids) and to be blunt would always have a low paying job. Doesn't matter how many years of seniority at a McJob you'll never make 6 figures.

    So, if the stay at home parent, to be blunt, enjoyed a MUCH better lifestyle than he/she ever would have on their own while married, and didn't "lose" earning potential/seniority of any significance, then please explain why they are entitled to be a parasite for decades off the hard working spouse.

    Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?

    Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?

    Leave a 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