Can CS Recipient Go After Payor's Spouse's Money?

[#1StepMom]

What are the chances of a child support recipient being granted support payments based on the income of the payor's spouse?

My husband has had a hard time with employment this past year. After years of working in the financial service industry, the 2008 market crash caused him to lose his job. Since then, he has been working hard at finding and maintaining employment. Unfortunately, he hasn't had much luck. Despite all this, he has continued paying his court ordered child support as he was not granted a reduction due to loss of employment. (And by "he" - I mean "me" since my husband's lack of income wouldn't allow him to pay even a penny in accordance to the CS Guidelines, which it seems don't apply to him, oddly enough.)

In the past few months, my husband has been working for a company doing a job he really liked and was very good at. Unfortunately, due to company cutbacks and reorganization, he was let go (being on the bottom of the totem pole) and is once again unemployed. He is still searching for a job, however cannot do much as he has a recent back injury (requiring 6-8 weeks of daily physiotherapy). As a result, I am once again trying to keep our household affloat by financing both mine, our, and his obligations.

Recently, the CS recipient has begun asking certain questions and making certain demands that lead us to think that she is trying to go after my money... that I be the payor of child support instead of my husband.

Her arguments (as far as we can tell from her communications) are...
- That I am "the primary caregiver" when the child is with my husband and I (picking-up/dropping-off the child, taking care of the child, etc.);
- That she has been receiving the court ordered child support despite my husband's unemployment, therefore "someone" in our household has been able to pay it;
- That I have a secure job with steady income, while my husband is having difficulty finding and maintaining a position.

Granted, all of the above are true. I am "the primary caregiver" as the court refused to adjust my husband's access schedule and ordered him to rely on family and friends to do the transportation and caring for the child should he not be available... I have been that "someone" helping pay support when the court refused to adjust my husband's child support when he lost his job... and I do have a secure job with steady income while my husband is currently unemployed, injured and in search of a new position.

This being the case... please tell me the CS recipient doesn't have a shot in hell going after MY money. Or at least tell me the truth - or what you perceive to be the true outcome of such a situation.

Thanks.

[billiechic]

I have no idea whether she is entitled to your money, but I have to say that is crap! You and your husband are doing everything you can to continue supporting the child, and I think that the court was wrong in forcing you to continue paying the same amount without him making the same income.

I see it as highly unjust and selfish for her to come after your income. You take care of this child as your own when he/she is with you, but you should not be responsible for paying when the child is with her. If the father's ability to support the child has been reduced due to unemployment, then his support should be reduced based on income tax. Yes, her household will suffer, but from your post it seems yours is suffering a lot more already.

Good luck. She should be greatful that she is still getting what she is. I'm assuming by coming after you she will get MORE, right?

[#1StepMom]

You and your husband are doing everything you can to continue supporting the child, and I think that the court was wrong in forcing you to continue paying the same amount without him making the same income.

Of course it's wrong... but according to the judge, my husband's request for a reduction due to loss of employment was "premature" (despite him being unemployed for almost 4 full months at the time of the court date) and despite our prenuptial agreement which states that my income is mine and not to be used in child support calculations or when determining his ability to pay... it was still used and deemed large enough to support the both of us while close to 100% of his EI went to paying child support.

She should be greatful that she is still getting what she is. I'm assuming by coming after you she will get MORE, right?

Of course! She'd be getting $150 more per month going after my income!

[billiechic]

despicable! I can't believe there are parents out there like that!

[#1StepMom]

despicable! I can't believe there are parents out there like that!

Sadly, there are parents like that... and she is one of them. This is the same "parent" who can yell and scream bloody murder about not getting enough $ in child support and being unable to provide for the child, then turn around and go on a week-long vacation to the Carribean.

This is also the same parent who refuses to pitch in to Section 7 expenses, resulting in my husband and I paying 100% of those expenses because we will not punish the child by not letting him partake in extracurricular activities because his mother refuses to pay for them.

This is also the same parent who refuses to abide by the norm and help with transportation to and from access visits, whether it's picking the child up from us or even meeting us halfway... yet goes out to buy herself an almost-brand-new luxary sedan.

And what is MOST FRIGHTENING about all this is that the courts are turning a blind eye to all this and ordering my husband to pay more, more, more. In our situation specifically... he is responsible for the child - not for her. They were never in a relationship (you can't possibly call a one-night-stand a relationship) and my husband, after paternity results proved him to be the father (from the 3 other guys in question), stepped up to the responsibility and has wanted nothing more than to meet his paternal responsibilities - yet is screwed by the court time and time again. Why? Most likely because he's male. Sad... but true.

[representingself]

Hey Stepmom,

I found this on the FAQ section of the www.justice.gc.ca website:

If you remarry, does the income of your new spouse affect child support amounts?
The only time a new spouse's income is considered is when either parent pleads undue hardship. In deciding undue hardship, you and the other parent must compare the standards of living of your two households. To do this, you must take into account the income of every member of each household.

So yeah, if she is claiming undue hardship, she can/will go after your income. Unbelieveable really...

Sorry

[#1StepMom]

Hey Stepmom,

I found this on the FAQ section of the www.justice.gc.ca website:

If you remarry, does the income of your new spouse affect child support amounts?
The only time a new spouse's income is considered is when either parent pleads undue hardship. In deciding undue hardship, you and the other parent must compare the standards of living of your two households. To do this, you must take into account the income of every member of each household.

So yeah, if she is claiming undue hardship, she can/will go after your income. Unbelieveable really...

Sorry

Thanks... that I knew... I just did not know that it's when "either parent pleads undue hardship." I thought my income would only be taken into account if my husband were to plead undue harship.

I'm also concerned/curious as to how and why she would plead undue harship if the child support she's been receiving to date has never been reduced, even due to my husband's loss of employment. She is getting close to the amount for 2 children... for only 1 child! How on earth could she plead undue hardship?!

[frustrated11]

OMG, this woman is un believable, what not settling for anything in the CC and the SC and go to trial or at least appeal any of the other things and maybe things will get better

[#1StepMom]

OMG, this woman is un believable, what not settling for anything in the CC and the SC and go to trial or at least appeal any of the other things and maybe things will get better

We've given up settling for anything in her CC's and SC's because by the end of it all... even though she demands it in her briefs... she doesn't want it anymore. From experience, we've noticed that when we agree to something she wants, she doesn't want it anymore. At least this is the case for everything with the exception of money of course! It's as if her only goal in life is to argue and fight with us. Over everything. Especially money!

[got2bkid]

#1StepMom,

It is pretty stressful, but my husbands ex-wife threatened to claim "undue hardship" when she heard I was going back to work after a year's maternity leave.

She was a student at the time and felt that we could afford more since I was now working. Nevermind that we had young twins and were paying 100% of "extra" expenses on top of CS and got no breaks on daycare etc. because they calculate the CS as part of OUR household income. Whatever!

I was pretty stressed out for a few months (sick to my stomach with worry for our family) but she never did go through with it. Maybe her free lawyer finally told her to give it up seeing as how she was already educated, fully employable, hadn't worked for years and took one or two courses at University for years to drag it out. I think a judge would have told her to "get a job".

But who knows?! You never know how these things go and thats what made me have many sleepless nights (plus twins ).

Your ex sounds kinda crazy. My husbands ex isn't even that crazy!

[#1StepMom]

Got2bkid... Are you saying they calculated your husband's CS obligations using your household income? As in your income combined with his income? And the monthly CS "award" was based on that? If so... yikes! I think that's what my stepson's mom is going for ultimately. I cannot fathom how that could be allowed. It really does make me sick to my stomach as well.

[Suchislife]

What got2Bkid is referring to is the problem of ineligibility for second families in which any Gov't tax breaks, daycare subsidies ETC...are all unavailable due to the APPARENT inflated income due to the SUPPORT payments that are leaving the household not taken into consideration.
Really support payments should be subtracted off the total household income because some payors could really use GST Rebate and subsidized daycare as well as all the extra's that the support recipient is entitled to.

[Suchislife]

#1SM, the onus is on your hubby's Ex to PROVE undue hardship. There are tables that the courts use. It isn't easy. My husband and I didn't qualify to even go that route when we had a new baby, the Ex wouldn't work, Spousal was ridiculous, CS was high, we didn't qualify for much Child Tax Credit or the like, and 53% of his income was deducted every pay.

Now with your hubby's recent employment & physical hardships HE is more likely to be able to claim undue hardship.

Are you considering another motion to vary in light of the non-improvement since the spring?

Don't let the cracker-jack crank you guys up. Ignore her. Don't talk to her.

[#1StepMom]

Canada's family court system is dispicable. Luckily, my husband and I are not living in poverty (and we hope we never will) but the way certain cases are handled is sickening. I have been doing A LOT of reading on how people (especially support payors) have been affected by "the system" and it is quite depressing.

It seems only realistic that my husband's lyoung-and-dumb one-night-stand would need to prove undue hardship before my "much above average" - as the last judge called it - income is taken into account for CS calculations, but given what we've already experienced at the mercy of a whimsical judge, anything is possible and more often than not, it is not in our favour.

We are not bringing forth any motions. There is no point. A judge will once again claim it premature and order us to pay the other party's costs. Been there, doing that... don't wish to do it again. We just have to suck it up and hope that my husband's back gets better soon so that he can continue in his search for employment. Thankfully, I got a slight increase in pay... so an extra $250/month will help keep us afloat. :-)

[lulu46]

Oh come on! Why do payer's always try to find ways to not take responsibility for their first children!