Child Support headache

[noteasy]

The ex agreed to split child support eligible dependent credits and there is a signed agreement stating so.
Now that we are settling up on child support their lawyer is insisting on offset amounts instead of us paying each other.
So I have to go to court and I have to go against a lawyer.

I searched CANLII for family law cases regarding parent A paying Parent B and parent B paying parent A but can't find any.
I can only find the tax law ones.

I want a judge to have us pay each other child support and need help.

thank you

[rockscan]

This has been discussed with a couple posters outlining the language. Do a search on it.

And you dont have to listen to her lawyer. If your agreement is correct for CRA her lawyer can pound sand.

[noteasy]

Already done and just redone. I am not looking for topics about how the CRA is denying credits or the wording for the document. I already know that.

I am trying to find CANLII or a way to get a judge to order that each party pays the other. What they normally do is off-set amounts.

Can I get help with that or did I miss the CANLII link in the posts?

[blinkandimgone]

This seems an incredibly foolish thing to take to court and I expect a judge would see it that way.
The end result is the same when it come to support amounts, their wording causes tax eligibility issues for you, changing the wording has zero impact for them other than they get to claim all the tax credits.

If it is already in your agreement that you alternate years for the eligible dependent, it makes no sense that you would agree to wording that would disqualify you from claiming it.

What is their reasoning for insisting on offset?

[noteasy]

If it is already in your agreement that you alternate years for the eligible dependent,

Yes it is in the Final Order done on consent.

it makes no sense that you would agree to wording that would disqualify you from claiming it.
......
This seems an incredibly foolish thing to take to court and I expect a judge would see it that way.
The end result is the same when it come to support amounts, their wording causes tax eligibility issues for you, changing the wording has zero impact for them other than they get to claim all the tax credits.

Order states pay ex based on my income of $xxx.xx and exes an imputed one of $6000.00. There is no payment based on an offset amount mentioned, there was no need as ex didn't meet the minimum amount to pay it.
Now that she has an income I want the wording to reflect that ex pays me child support. I pay ex and ex pays me.
I do not want wording of offset amount put into the order. Once that is done it is done forever.

What is their reasoning for insisting on offset?

None. Ex and her lawyer dug their heels in.

Is it foolish of me or them to take this to court?
Are there cases where the parties argued over this?

[blinkandimgone]

Ok, so you are updating completely for cs amounts for each of you.

The fact remains that having conflicting statements serves no purppose. You are correct that it should state both payors and not offset.


I would stand your ground on this. If they take it
to court, the judge will say it's stupid- her lawyer knows this.

Just put the wording you want and tell them you will agree and sign with this specific wording and leave the ball in their court.

[noteasy]

Thank you.

[noteasy]

thank you.

I am going through CANLII picking out this case and that. If anyone has a CANLII link where a judge wrote an order for bilateral payment for any case I would very much appreciate it. I want to find as many examples as I can. I am told that different jurisdictions may have different practices.

[blinkandimgone]

You don't need any of that unless it goes to court. I highly doubt it will.

[rockscan]

You won't find it easily in canlii. What I said about searching the forum relates to the language which you already have. The only change is your ex has a different income. It doesnt matter what your ex wants or what her lawyer says. You update the order only to include her new income. If your ex wants to take it to court let her but it will still result in the same outcome and she risks paying your costs.

[noteasy]

You won't find it easily in canlii. What I said about searching the forum relates to the language which you already have. The only change is your ex has a different income. It doesnt matter what your ex wants or what her lawyer says. You update the order only to include her new income. If your ex wants to take it to court let her but it will still result in the same outcome and she risks paying your costs.

It is not a simply order update changing the income.
There is no clause for her paying me $0
There is no clause for me paying offset.
So a new term is being introduced. I have the language and it is for FRO my language is 2 paragraphs, hoping to make it one. I will have to fight for it unless they relent and I want to be prepared for that early, it helps me sleep better at night.
I am feeling better already though.
I swear divorce is deadlier than cancer.

[StillPaying]

You're asking the court system and fro to change their system for you. They don't want to enforce 1 payer let alone 2.

All you need are the details. Applicant pays x based on xx income. Respondent paid y based on yy income.

Then you're allowed to have "offset" or only one party as "payer", etc and still receive cra shared benefits.

[noteasy]

You're asking the court system and fro to change their system for you. They don't want to enforce 1 payer let alone 2.

All you need are the details. Applicant pays x based on xx income. Respondent paid y based on yy income.

Then you're allowed to have "offset" or only one party as "payer", etc and still receive cra shared benefits.

Not unless they changed the rules lately. The payments happen both ways. FRO will do this.
Taxman has went to court over that and won.

[rockscan]

If it comes out that you end up paying offset then simply have it that way. The agreement can say parent a pays parent b x dollars and parent b pays parent a y dollars. Therefore the offset amount of support monthly is z dollars. You should still get the credits and it avoids all this money going back and forth.

Not sure why it is an issue to have an offset amount when one parent will make less than the other monthly. It's an unnecessary fight and not worth the money.

[arbortrail22]

potentially if the other party is a "payor" as well- then lawyer fees are tax deductible?