My spouse and I separated about 18 months ago. He has access to 2 of the children about 42% of the time, and the other about 36% (average over the year, but over past few months has decreased to about 10%). He is asking for child support as I make more $.
It was my understanding that the higher access parent was the one with the right to child support and that he, as the parent with the lower access would be eligible for a decrease in child support. (NOTE: currently neither of us pays the other anything, but he is now trying to get retroactive child support for the past 13 months).
I pay for everything for all 3 kids as he won't help at all with anything but the food he feeds them when he has them and the roof over their head he provides when they are with him. I think he probably bought about 2 pairs of pants for each child and a pair of shoes each as well in the past 18 months.
I pay for daycare, private school tuition, medical and dental insurance, medical and dental bills, orthodontic bills, clothes, hair cuts, RESP's, glasses, homeschooling costs, school supplies, school fees, school uniforms......
Over the past 18 months, I pay all these bills and he gets to use the children as write-offs on his taxes and use the charitable donation receipt for private school as a write-off as well. So, all the expenses I put out, he gets about $4,000 back in income tax.
Does anyone know if there is any ruling on this type of case? I would think I should be eligible at least for child support for the one child he is below the 40% threshold for. This child decided not to live with him anymore and he currently refuses to talk to me about a new schedule (I'm guessing he wants to go to court and claim that the child should be with him so he can still try and get child support).
Additionally, wouldn't all of the special expenses be considered in determining whether he was even eligible for child support. I put out about 10,000 a year in special expenses and he gets $4,000 a year in tax benefits even though he puts forward $0.
I'm finding myself really frustrated with the system as if I have to pay him child support, I know it won't go to the children and they will be doing without. For a system that claims to want to make sure the children are cared for, it sure feels as if it is more about him getting his fair share than the kids best interest.
It was my understanding that the higher access parent was the one with the right to child support and that he, as the parent with the lower access would be eligible for a decrease in child support. (NOTE: currently neither of us pays the other anything, but he is now trying to get retroactive child support for the past 13 months).
I pay for everything for all 3 kids as he won't help at all with anything but the food he feeds them when he has them and the roof over their head he provides when they are with him. I think he probably bought about 2 pairs of pants for each child and a pair of shoes each as well in the past 18 months.
I pay for daycare, private school tuition, medical and dental insurance, medical and dental bills, orthodontic bills, clothes, hair cuts, RESP's, glasses, homeschooling costs, school supplies, school fees, school uniforms......
Over the past 18 months, I pay all these bills and he gets to use the children as write-offs on his taxes and use the charitable donation receipt for private school as a write-off as well. So, all the expenses I put out, he gets about $4,000 back in income tax.
Does anyone know if there is any ruling on this type of case? I would think I should be eligible at least for child support for the one child he is below the 40% threshold for. This child decided not to live with him anymore and he currently refuses to talk to me about a new schedule (I'm guessing he wants to go to court and claim that the child should be with him so he can still try and get child support).
Additionally, wouldn't all of the special expenses be considered in determining whether he was even eligible for child support. I put out about 10,000 a year in special expenses and he gets $4,000 a year in tax benefits even though he puts forward $0.
I'm finding myself really frustrated with the system as if I have to pay him child support, I know it won't go to the children and they will be doing without. For a system that claims to want to make sure the children are cared for, it sure feels as if it is more about him getting his fair share than the kids best interest.
Comment