Tweet
Oh and he said that what he said to me "WATCH YOUR BACK" was not a threat.
-
-
And of course, you did this all by email so that you have it writing...right?Comment
-
He says he doesn't have computer. Which I don't believe him as he has facebook. We have voice recordings.Comment
-
Access over 40% means it should be OFFSET table amounts. Is he paying full table or offset?
Obviously you aren't going to get anywhere with him. Do what I recommended you do and get things done via FRO, then get a motion to increase the amounts based on the income tax assessments.Comment
-
Working on that now.
Comment
-
He is paying less then full table amount, about $80.00 less which was agreed to then increase to table on July 1, 2012.Comment
-
But he has the kids over 40% of the time? Do you work? What is his current line 150 amounts? what are yours?
IF he has the kids over 40% of the time, he should NOT be paying full table. He should be paying offset. AND he's eligible to claim the CCTB/UCCB under a shared parenting arrangement, if he hasn't done so already.Comment
-
No he doesn't have the child for more then 40%. Yes I work. I really do not want to disclose my income on here. I make a little over minimum wage. Yes he has received the CCTB.Comment
-
No he doesn't have the child for more then 40%.Those are mutually exclusive statements. In order to claim CCTB as a shared arrangement, he has to convince CRA he has them over 40%. That's THEIR threshold for shared.Yes he has received the CCTB.
If he's managed to do that, or is close enough to that mark that they allowed it, then he's paying you too much in CS, and you could be in for a fight if you go to court.
What is the current access schedule?Comment
-
I was told if it is shared he can apply for CCTB, the schedule is 2 days during week which is over night and every other weekend for 3 days. So just wondering why he should pay less if the court ordered the guideline, as our agreement started in Sept. 2011 and his lawyer said since it is part way through why not wait for guideline until next year and just continue with agreement amount for now. Don't you go by what the court order states knowing the access he has.Comment
-
So he has 2 days EACH week and every other weekend? If so, that would meet the threshold for shared parenting, and thus c/s should be subject to the offset amount.
He should pay reduced amount as the new agreement would likely override the previous order as it changes the parenting schedule. Also, his expenses are increasing due to having the kids more, so it is only fair that he pay the reduced amount effective the start date of the new agreement.Comment
-
Ok I understand your post but there is no new agreement. This court ordered agreement has been in place for a year now.Comment
-
So the 2 days each week and EOW was in place from day 1? That is 50/50 from the get go.
The court either made a mistake when determining c/s and entered full c/s instead of offset, or your lawyer made argument to state that anything less than full c/s would not be in the kids best interests.
Are you in court now on this matter? If you are, without knowing the background on the courts reasoning as to why full c/s was ordered in a 50/50 situation, I would think it is likely a court will have the amount changed to the offset amount. And I don't think it would be unreasonable for it to be retro back to the date of the original order.
He has the same expenses for the kids as you do. Unless he is wealthy or a high income earner, I believe it would be unreasonable to expect him to pay full c/s when he has to provide for the kids himself.Comment
-
Two weeks have 14 days.
He has the child two nights each week, and one weekend for three nights, for a total of 7 nights in 14.
He has the child 50% of the time.
I cannot imagine how you have a court order for full CS if that was the schedule at the time. If the schedule changed since then, he has been OVERPAYING CS.
He was probably fine with the amount, but became resentful when you started asking for an increase.
He is taking care of the child half the time and paying full expenses during that time, so he is already paying 50% of her support just by having her live with him. You are asking that he pay 100% support on top of that.
If he has the child two weeknights, and the three night weekend sounds like he must pick her up from school and drop her off Monday morning. So he can very well establish that he is directly involved as a parent, not just having her over for visits.
It sounds like you don't entirely understand this, so I am not blaming you, but it is also true that he has reason to be annoyed.
"Watch your back" can mean many things. Only you can say if he has a serious enough history of violence. But "watch your back" could very well refer to the fact that if you take him to court, you will end up with a REDUCTION in child support and OWING him a refund for the last years he has been overpaying.Comment
-
"OWING him a refund for the last years he has been overpaying"... and the COSTS (his legal bill) for him having to bring the matter before the superior court to resolve because you possibly don't understand the concept of shared custody and offset child support.Originally posted by Mess View Post
Also, calling the police and having CAS may demonstrate a "material change in circumstance" and matters can be hauled possibly back into court depending on the finding from CAS and/or the police by either party. If the evidence weighs against you that you are possibly making a false allegation of intimate partner abuse against the other parent a judge can change the existing order, custody and access schedule.
Custody and Access is never truly "final" before the courts.Comment
Comment