Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Retroactive Child Support Max 3 years still valid especially not payor's fault ?

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

  • Is Retroactive Child Support Max 3 years still valid especially not payor's fault ?

    hello all, I am asking this for a friend. After case conference, the judge order both parties to provide tax info back to 10 years when the couple divorced and a lump sum(requested by the recipient parent) CS prepaid up to certen point of time. After that the recipient parent blocked payor parent's access to the child, didn't ask for continuing support either after the lump sum used up, no financial status exchange or requests between the couple. Now all of sudden the recipient filed a case claiming on going child support and back support, the judge at case conference ordered tax retunrs back to 10 years. Is that to say the court will likely recaculate the CS back to 10 years, credit the lump sum prepaid and order the retroactive back to 10 years even though there is big parent allienation and the receipent never talked about CS with payor parent before the court case? The max 3 years rule changed no matter what the situation is ? The court doesn't care about if there is any existing order or request for CS, doesn't care about blamwhothy conducts of recipient parent? Whenever the recipient parent claims, just simply go back whatever it is claimed?

  • #2
    A previous poster (gmcode) had this exact situation. Not sure if you are asking again for him or if this is new but the answers are still the same.

    Alienation and parenting time has nothing to do with support. Support is to be paid regardless of whether you see the child or not. Let it go if you see nothing.

    Three years back is if support has been paid or if it wasn’t paid properly. The use of a three year rule is sort of standard for support that has been paid and needs to be updated. If someone has not been acting in good faith, a judge could order farther back. This could be because the payor has been earning more and didnt report it or the recipient was claiming support for a child that was not eligible. That is entirely up to the judge. You can’t say only three years across the board because every case is different.

    Because a lump sum payment is not the norm, the judge is more than likely trying to figure out if the amount paid was either over or under the amount owed. Lump sums should never be paid for this very reason (stretching time farther than 3 years) and for the fact that both parties open themselves up to litigation. The judge wants to see what should have been paid versus what was paid in the lump sum and then go from there. Demanding disclosure does not mean it will be ordered but the judge needs a better picture to make the call and provide direction.

    Bottom line, provide the info.

    Comment


    • #3
      My ex paid cs inconsistently during our 10 plus year litigation. He also paid about only 1/3 of what he should have been paying now that he has finally disclosed most of the requested financials. We are asking for back cs to the date of separation plus interest. Had he been forthcoming and honest from the date of separation, he would not have found himself in the situation he is in now, owing a large amount of back child support and s7 expenses dating back more than 10 years. Also, according to my lawyer, once the children reach age 18 they can pursue a claim for back cs and back s7 expenses as well but the recipient parent must first have filed a claim. The money does after all belong to the children

      Comment


      • #4
        What if there was no cs request before, no court order either becasue the receioent just wanted to alienate the payor parent and wait for a good time to file the claims. What if the payor has no sufficient armout of money to pay retro? force to sell the property to pay? The court has recognized the payor is on long term disability.

        Comment


        • #5
          Child support is paid whether you see the child or not. The two are not connected. And it’s responsibility of the payor parent to be aware of and meet their obligations. They could argue a high retro award would be difficult but they will still have to pay. They also should have gotten legal advice before making a lump sum payment and thinking that was enough.

          Comment


          • #6
            I can’t say for sure, but the long term disability will have an impact on child support. My last court appearance the judge told me he could not just go ahead and impute an income on my ex because she might be on disability or something similar.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by undersc0re View Post
              I can’t say for sure, but the long term disability will have an impact on child support. My last court appearance the judge told me he could not just go ahead and impute an income on my ex because she might be on disability or something similar.

              It would only have an impact on the payments from the time they went on disability not fully retroactively. This payor gave a lump sum thinking that would be enough and got on with their life. Now the recipient has come back claiming support and the payor doesn’t want to pay it using alienation and disability as an excuse. They should have gotten legal advice back when it came up and dealt with ongoing support rather than paying to make the problem go away.

              Comment


              • #8
                Recent Supreme Court decisions on this issue have put greater emphasis on payment of retroactive support. (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...18460/index.do)

                The question will be 'effective notice'. Was there any reason at all for the payor to believe they had a support obligation to the child? A text, an email, etc. any request at all. That would start the clock.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kinso View Post
                  Recent Supreme Court decisions on this issue have put greater emphasis on payment of retroactive support. (https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...18460/index.do)

                  The question will be 'effective notice'. Was there any reason at all for the payor to believe they had a support obligation to the child? A text, an email, etc. any request at all. That would start the clock.
                  No any contact from the recipient parent to the payor in the past many years even when the payor reached out(payor has evidence), seems the receipent parent just comepletely disappeared with the child so that the payor can not see the child any more. And all of a sudden the recipient parent filed a court case from nowhere.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That sounds compelling, but there are no guarantees in court (or life).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Is Retroactive Child Support Max 3 years still valid especially not payor's fault ?

                      Originally posted by Kinso View Post
                      That sounds compelling, but there are no guarantees in court (or life).

                      If these questions are coming from the other poster with almost exactly the same scenario as this thread then it’s really not all that compelling. The other thread dealt with a parent who paid a lump sum and the recipient took off. The recipient parent has now come back demanding ongoing support as it has been ten years and they realized they are still entitled to support. That poster wanted to simply pay another lump sum and was advised not to do it.

                      The alienation has nothing to do with support. An argument could be made that the payor paid the lump sum to be done with the child. Didn’t make enough effort etc. An email here and there is limited. Why not file a court matter to enforce parenting time? Update child support etc.

                      This truly sounds like a case of a parent who paid a lump sum to be done with the kid and now has an ongoing obligation and is pulling out all the poor me stops. Alienated, didn’t hear anything, has to sell property to cover retro, has to go back ten years etc. Let this be a big lesson to parents. You can’t make a lump sum payment and think it’s enough to get out of your obligations. If the poster had gotten legal advice in the beginning this would probably been avoided.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        the payor didn't want to pay lump sum in the begining but the other party pushed to pay it and took the money then dsiappeared. The payor paid the lump sum in order to be allowed to see the child and tried hard to get child back, the payor has evidence. The other party comes back again after many years and asks for another one lump sum. Payor has evidence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          His evidence is worthless. He should have gotten legal advice and had a set schedule and custody arrangement. If it is in fact gmcode he demonstrated he was willing to pay another lump sum rather than take the proper route. Only after several people here told him to get a lawyer did he do what he should do and should have done back then. You can’t make a poor decision and then claim it is the other person’s fault. Now he could argue the ex is a flight risk and he wants designated parenting time but a status quo has been set. Unfortunately he is going to have to pay back support and ongoing support as well as legal fees to fix the problem created.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks, yes agree should have legal advice in first place. How to calculate histroical CS going by years? Is the CS rate different every year?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It depends on the salary. If the annual income is known, you take that and punch it into the online tables and go from there. He would then total up what he owed and then subtract the lump sum paid. From that he gets his arrears owing.

                              As awful as the ex is for pulling this stunt, he has to meet his obligations and it’s cheaper to deal with it all rather than let anger and resentment cloud the judgement.

                              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