Salary - CS

[otttawa_dad]

Quick Question:

I have a court order, where I pay CS to OP. I'm over the 40/60 and still pay full table amount.


OP intentionally lowers anual income, my CS payment offset the difference. Would the court do anything about this?

If the tables turned, were I lower my income the Court would inpute my income.

Just curious.

[rockscan]

If you pay full table support then the other parent's income is only relevant for section 7. Their income means nothing in relation to cs when it is full table.

[otttawa_dad]

So what you suggesting is that my child support promotes OP not working to their full potential?

I'd be curious to see what a judge would order if I intentionally dropped my salary to reduce CS payments.

[otttawa_dad]

maybe a little backgroup would help shed some light on this.

OP has the potential of making 100k+. For the last 4 years OP salary is in the 65-75k range.

My salary is on par w OP potential.

[LMum]

So what you suggesting is that my child support promotes OP not working to their full potential?

I'd be curious to see what a judge would order if I intentionally dropped my salary to reduce CS payments.

First of all , if you are over the 40 percent then it should just be offset. If you are not, then you pay full table. Either way intentionally dropping your salary to avoid taking care of your kids is, IMO, just bad parenting. Take care of your kids!

[rockscan]

So what you suggesting is that my child support promotes OP not working to their full potential?

I'd be curious to see what a judge would order if I intentionally dropped my salary to reduce CS payments.

No it has nothing to do with that. You don't have shared physical custody at 50/50. You pay full table. Your ex's decision not to work means nothing. If they made 100k a year it would not impact cs because you pay full table support. If you reduced your income then they would argue you are purposely underemployed and you would be ordered to pay support based on what you were earning.

[noteasy]

This doesn’t make sense.
If access is 40/60 to 50/50 both parents contribute to child support.
Both parents may pay full table to the other based on their income. Most orders have those amounts offset.

if the op is still paying based on their ex having more than 60% access they need to prove this to a judges and have ex pay towards child support.
if they can demonstrate the ex is under employed then they need to demonstrate this to a judge in order to get an income imputed upon them. How does the poster plan to do that? Did the parent have 100k/year job and quit it?

this seems simple.

[rockscan]

This doesn’t make sense.
If access is 40/60 to 50/50 both parents contribute to child support.
Both parents may pay full table to the other based on their income. Most orders have those amounts offset.

if the op is still paying based on their ex having more than 60% access they need to prove this to a judges and have ex pay towards child support.
if they can demonstrate the ex is under employed then they need to demonstrate this to a judge in order to get an income imputed upon them. How does the poster plan to do that? Did the parent have 100k/year job and quit it?

this seems simple.

This poster has a history of being unhappy about their lot and paying cs. If the situation hasn't changed and they still have an order for full table support then their ex's income means nothing. If there has been a change and they can prove it then they need a motion to change to update cs. Which would mean the ex pulling back any extra time given over the years. What this poster needs to do is suck it up and move on from being angry that their children get support.

[noteasy]

This poster has a history of being unhappy about their lot and paying cs. If the situation hasn't changed and they still have an order for full table support then their ex's income means nothing. If there has been a change and they can prove it then they need a motion to change to update cs. Which would mean the ex pulling back any extra time given over the years. What this poster needs to do is suck it up and move on from being angry that their children get support.

They are paying their support and I would be angry too if my ex wasn’t paying her support. She should be paying support!

If he can prove the time he is spending with the kids then he should go to court to get the order updated. If he can prove it and the ex cuts back on the access that has been established for years she could find herself in trouble.

poster needs to start working on their documentation to get that child support evader to start contributing.

[rockscan]

Go and read the old posts. This was tried and it was less than 50/50. OP has paid full table for several years and thinks that paying her support isn't fair.

[noteasy]

Go and read the old posts. This was tried and it was less than 50/50. OP has paid full table for several years and thinks that paying her support isn't fair.

What is important is this post/tread for them and for others that read it. Being vague and pointing to "other posts" isn't all that helpful.

50/50 is not the metric.
40/60 is the metric
If they spend 40%-60% of the time with the child then each parent effectively pays full-table amount to the other.

If they spend less than 40% of the time with the child they pay full-table amount and the other parent pays nothing, doesn't matter if they make $60K or $100K they still pay nothing and the other parent pays full-table amount
If the other parent has an income below the threshold then they pay full-table amount and the other parent pays nothing.

What counts as time? It is done by the hours in a year.
Who gets credit for the time a child is at school? usually it is either the dropping off or picking up parent. Not a switch around so that only 1 parent gets credit for that time.
If parent 1 does all this school or daycare prep then there is entitlement, it goes both ways.
If mom wants to send the kid to her mothers, mom gets the time.
If dad wants to send the kid to camp, they get the time.
the judge gets leeway on this.

Up to them if they want to bring it back to court to get it so the piece of paper says they have the child more than 40% of time. Don't know why they didn't win this last time but that is a different discussion.

[noteasy]

What I did do to amuse I went through a post from this poster in 2018.

Then: the poster wanted to increase the time they spent with their kid via court order and failed.
Now: the poster did increase the time they spent with their kid via mutual agreement with ex. Assumption they have established a status quo in this regard and can prove it.

This is a reason for a motion to change.
If I were the poster I would ask that this thread be deleted so their ex doesn't find out what they are doing, get the evidence and consult a lawyer to see if they are ready.

[blinkandimgone]

The options are get a motion to adjust support, or get a motion to adjust S.7 split. If you're not taking steps to change anything, your option is to continue paying what is ordered.

"If I were the poster I would ask that this thread be deleted so their ex doesn't find out what they are doing, get the evidence and consult a lawyer to see if they are ready."

You may want to read the sticky threads in the welcome forum. We don't do that.

[rockscan]

What is important is this post/tread for them and for others that read it. Being vague and pointing to "other posts" isn't all that helpful.

It actually is helpful and part of the rules of the forum. It also demonstrates what this poster was told before. He has asked a similar question and has posted about his unhappiness at having to pay support when his ex could make more money.

50/50 is not the metric.
40/60 is the metric
If they spend 40%-60% of the time with the child then each parent effectively pays full-table amount to the other.

It is the metric and what the court decides. For this poster it was found they were not at 50/50 and therefore full table was ordered. If that time has changed and they can demonstrate a change to the court then that is who should be deciding. If it hasn't changed and OP is still simply unhappy with paying support when their ex can work more, the court doesn't care.

If the other parent has an income below the threshold then they pay full-table amount and the other parent pays nothing.

There is no threshold. Even if a payor is on EI they pay. The recipient parent's income means nothing and being angry that they don't work has zero relevance.

What counts as time? It is done by the hours in a year.
Who gets credit for the time a child is at school? usually it is either the dropping off or picking up parent. Not a switch around so that only 1 parent gets credit for that time.
If parent 1 does all this school or daycare prep then there is entitlement, it goes both ways.
If mom wants to send the kid to her mothers, mom gets the time.
If dad wants to send the kid to camp, they get the time.
the judge gets leeway on this.

This was answered in a previous thread for the poster by several people. In his case it was decided that he did not have shared 50/50 time and therefore paid full table.

Up to them if they want to bring it back to court to get it so the piece of paper says they have the child more than 40% of time. Don't know why they didn't win this last time but that is a different discussion.

Again, in the previous threads by this poster it was answered and he pays full table. If there has been a change in custody and it can be argued successfully then it should go back to court. What can't be argued is that he stops paying support because his ex has potential to make more when his time is less than offset.

[noteasy]

I don't understand how Rockscan can make one post and be so wrong on everything including the law and the posters ask/argument.

There is absolutely a minimum income threshold for paying CS. Try to look up the amount of CS owed on an income of 10K and that happens with some "going to school" and others that are on disability. The argument you are making has already been fought and lost. CANLII and the look up table for CS are the places to find this info.

A metric of 40% is a quantitative value, not a qualitative one. A judge is not allowed to change this metric they can only allocate hours spent with a child based on evidence.
Such as "I am going to credit the father with the hours the child spends at school on Mondays where where had access the two previous days, dropped them off at school and was the only available parent." Again, this is caselaw. Even if the order stated "dad has the kids 10% of the time" but he cares for those kids 80% of the time he is entitled to back CS, overpaid CS and ongoing CS; dad would have the burden of proof in court.

hmmmm.....are you looking up the right poster?
Here is the first post from the last post started by this poster.
It states what they were arguing and it is not what they are arguing now.

Hi,

It's been a while since i've posted. Trial slated in a couple months.
I've filed to motion for change, ACCESS and SUPPORT.
Here's my dilema and a brief recap.
I'm fighting for 50/50...
My EX can't care for the children during her work. she's a shift worker and works 12hrs days and nights.
She has 3rd parties care for the children before school, after school, meal times, overnight and weekends while she is working
I work a normal 8-4 schedule.

Both kids in school and registered to before an after school daycare.
My argument is that I'm willing capable to care for them.
Prior to seperation I would care for them during these described periods.
She's withholding access to keep me bellow the 40% threshold intentionally.
Any thoughts, recommendation, case law????

Many Thanks for helping and support