Salary - CS

[rockscan]

For a guy who can't even figure out a trial brief you have a lot to say about people being right or wrong. Maybe figure out your own case before attacking others?

He asked about his ex's lack of higher income impacting his support. If he can prove he has 50/50 then he should file a motion. If he can prove his ex is underemployed then he should include that in the motion.

Otherwise his feelings about having to pay support and how much his ex makes are irrelevant. He has been told this before.

[noteasy]

For a guy who can't even figure out a trial brief you have a lot to say about people being right or wrong. Maybe figure out your own case before attacking others?

OMG. Feeling a bit overly defensive and overly hostile?


Earlier today:

This poster has a history of being unhappy about their lot and paying cs....
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.

The ex can try and pull back extra time they have given over the years but a judge should shut them down on that.
Nah, they don't need to "suck it up and move on"

Now:

He asked about his ex's lack of higher income impacting his support. If he can prove he has 50/50 then he should file a motion.

I believe you can't recognize the difference in your two posts.

[iona6656]

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.

Nah- it isn't. Look up the caselaw- the 40/60 thing is a guideline. Going above 40% is the entry to bring a motion to change support. But it's not an automatic or given. It will depend on how the judge allocates time...

Blink said it earlier- OP's only option is to bring motion to change support or s.7.

Also- this argument of "well I can watch the kids if my ex can't" - if that's your argument, you probably should've just stayed married. Every summer my ex tries that argument because he WFH and doesn't want to send our daughter to summer camps. Every year my lawyer has to send a letter to him saying "summer childcare is section 7. ante up dumbass"....okay- so every year = two years in a row. but still.

[Gilligan]

To answer the OP's question, in my limited experience, I don't think a judge would give much weight to what you say your ex's earning potential and would base his/her decision on what is on their tax return. The burden of proof would be on you and you are at a dis-advantage being the payor parent who will be portraed as a father trying to reduce child support for your children. I think you would need a lot of evidence such as a clear patern of higher income, but even then i'm not sure how much this would be considered. I understand your frustration, but if I could over some advice, do not try the tactic of lowering your income, it will not work in your favour.

As Rockscan correctly points out, unless you are in an offset situation, this has a marginal impact as it will be only used to adjust Secion 7 expenses.

I feel for you, I was fortunate enough to be in an offset situation but dealt with years of my ex being under employed. The courts did not seem to care and I had to increase my payments as a result.

[noteasy]

Nah- it isn't. Look up the caselaw- the 40/60 thing is a guideline. Going above 40% is the entry to bring a motion to change support. But it's not an automatic or given. It will depend on how the judge allocates time..

passive aggressive mimicry, please grow up.

you are not making sense. How a judge allocates time can change with reason but I can think of only one type of instance where 40% is not the rock solid number and that is in cases of parental alienation.

yes. It is automatic one the numbers are defined.

[iona6656]

passive aggressive mimicry, please grow up.

you are not making sense. How a judge allocates time can change with reason but I can think of only one type of instance where 40% is not the rock solid number and that is in cases of parental alienation.

yes. It is automatic one the numbers are defined.

show me the case where it says that once you achieve 40% it's automatic offset. Honestly- I've never seen such a case.

[noteasy]

show me the case where it says that once you achieve 40% it's automatic offset. Honestly- I've never seen such a case.

Wild guess is that you are part of the reason your ex is portrayed as so nuts by you on this forum.
Instead of providing caselaw you sat back and demanded someone else go look up your own claim.

It is as automatic as can be, here you go, this is shared parenting time:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/do...&resultIndex=5

There is an onus on the person claiming the change Paragraph 22.

Paragraph 19, 20 and 31 is of particular importance. While it is a federal guideline the provinces have input on how that guideline is applied.
Ontario is all about those hours. The decision also points out other things to consider in general terms.

I am not a lawyer and a judge decides things.
Why do you think that so many of these agreements where the non-breadwinner demands something just over 60% access time for themselves. The primary answer to that is minimizing their time with the child and maximizing their cash income (CS).

May we have the link to the canlii link you implied you have?

[StillPaying]

The decision also points out other things to consider in general terms.

Which is why 40% doesn't guarantee anything. The judge has full control over calculating time and how much (if any) cs will change.

[noteasy]

Which is why 40% doesn't guarantee anything. The judge has full control over calculating time and how much (if any) cs will change.

I don’t know about that there. Judges do not like to be overturned or the ire of abuse

[rockscan]

I don’t know about that there. Judges do not like to be overturned or the ire of abuse

What? Judges follow the case law and if something has been changed at the appeal court then that is considered too. They have clerks who do research for them, the know the law and they review whatever cases are provided. It's their job to know the law and interpret it in decisions.

[noteasy]

No idea what you are disagreeing about there Rockscan. Maybe you meant to quote the person that stated judges have full control over calculating time.

[rockscan]

No I was quoting you saying judges don't like to be overturned. You make assumptions about judges that aren't necessarily true. There wouldn't be such strict rules about appeals if judges didn't like being over turned. They follow the law to avoid it being overturned on appeal. It's also why appeals courts don't accept so many appeals!

[noteasy]

Still don’t know what your point is. Are you saying judges have full control on how they calculate the hours or are you agreeing with me that they have to follow established law, generally follow case law and calculate the hours properly?

[rockscan]

They have full control and follow the law. Canlii is just a small sample of cases. There are plenty of cases found in other databases.

[noteasy]

They have full control and follow the law. Canlii is just a small sample of cases. There are plenty of cases found in other databases.

I don’t understand how what you typed contributes to this conversation.