NDI cap

[momtoalot]

Hi there
Does anyone know if there is an actual cap on NDI out there? Lawyers have claimed Andrews vs Andrews provides a hard cap to NDI, that no payor should pay more than 60% of the total net income to the payee, regardless of circumstance. My lawyer and I have read this case inside and out and we can't see that language anywhere.

My situation is pretty interesting. I have 6 children living w me, my ex makes mid 6 figures. I work part time making mid $50 000's. He doesn't want them more than every other weekend.
Apparently a parent cannot be forced to take children more than they want (other than the custodial parent apparently!) and if there is a hard cap somewhere out there I would be in a worse place financially than if we split them 50-50.

Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated

[Berner_Faith]

What are you referring too? CS or SS or both?

[momtoalot]

NDI is the amount that is left to each party at the end of the month. After CS, S7 and SS plus incomes of both parties. Regardless of circumstances.
The OP is suggesting that 60% of the total is the most one can have and you can never go over it (sites Andrews vs Andrews as the litmus test)
For example:
A family with 3 kids living w mom maximum of all sources is 60%. Father living alone w 40% of the total income of both houses
A family with 6 kids living w mom would be the same max 60%. Father living alone with 40% of the total income of both houses.
To me the math doesn't make sense.

[Links17]

In Quebec, never more than 50% of gross pay (which is ludicrous anyways).

[momtoalot]

Links17- never more than 50 percent even when the parent has them more than 60% of the time??
Does everyone have to do 50-50?

[Berner_Faith]

CS doesn't change whether you have 61% or 99%. If full table CS is owed (meaning one parent has over 60% of access) the CS amounts are the same. You don't get more than table amount for having more access. It worries me that your lawyer has not explained this to you. I sure hope your lawyer is not stringing you along for billable hours.

[momtoalot]

Berner
I don't know if you have misunderstood my posting or if I have been unclear.
My ex is using Andrews and Andrews to suggest that, regardless what he makes, the total of child support, ss and s7 can never be more than 60 percent. No where in that case law does the ruling say that and I was wondering if anyone else knew of this cap. There were several cases after Andrews and Andrews, such as Kerr vs Kerr where the NDI was greater than 65 percent.

[DowntroddenDad]

Berner
I don't know if you have misunderstood my posting or if I have been unclear.
My ex is using Andrews and Andrews to suggest that, regardless what he makes, the total of child support, ss and s7 can never be more than 60 percent. No where in that case law does the ruling say that and I was wondering if anyone else knew of this cap. There were several cases after Andrews and Andrews, such as Kerr vs Kerr where the NDI was greater than 65 percent.

Understand that for a lot of us, that stratespheric number seems awfully high. You will probably spend more in legal fees to fight over a few percent than many people get in support in a year.

Everyone suffers financially after a divorce, there is no way that a family can split and maintain two households and maintain the old standard of living.

You really want to take 2/3 of his income from him, when he would concede 60%?

[momtoalot]

I am not ungrateful for what I do have however if you have kids then you are aware the costs for raising each and they are w me 80 percent of the time the costs are quite significant. The children deserve the access to the funds their parents make. It costs much more to house and support 7 people than one.

[Links17]

Links17- never more than 50 percent even when the parent has them more than 60% of the time??
Does everyone have to do 50-50?

No matter what the case a payor's monthly amount should never be more than 50% - the rule is there so payor's don't quit their jobs because it isn't worth it.

The cost of raising 7 kids is not linearly more expensive than raising 2 kids.

[DowntroddenDad]

I am not ungrateful for what I do have however if you have kids then you are aware the costs for raising each and they are w me 80 percent of the time the costs are quite significant. The children deserve the access to the funds their parents make. It costs much more to house and support 7 people than one.

I do have kids, and I am well aware that they can be raised for much less than what you are receiving. You are demanding that they maintain exactly the same lifestyle that you had and that isn't realistic. Many families lose their homes and rent apartments.

Would your costs be less if the kids lived with him 50% of the time?

[momtoalot]

I am not sure where you get the impression I am asking for the same lifestyle as I had in marriage and no where am I demanding that it be so. That is not possible. I did lose my home. I have a smaller home. Of note my ex's quality of life has increased. He has more disposable income. He has acquired more luxuries. He has a larger home. He has traveled more etc...

Yes my costs would be less. Less utilities, less food costs, needs of the children would be shared (ie personal effects, driving them-so gas etc..)His costs would be more if he had them 50%. The funds would need to be evened out which they are in the 50-50
divorcemate calculation.

I find it interesting to see how this how shifted from my original request for data about other court cases.

[DowntroddenDad]

I am not sure where you get the impression I am asking for the same lifestyle as I had in marriage and no where am I demanding that it be so. That is not possible. I did lose my home. I have a smaller home. Of note my ex's quality of life has increased. He has more disposable income. He has acquired more luxuries. He has a larger home. He has traveled more etc...

Yes my costs would be less. Less utilities, less food costs, needs of the children would be shared (ie personal effects, driving them-so gas etc..)His costs would be more if he had them 50%. The funds would need to be evened out which they are in the 50-50
divorcemate calculation.

I find it interesting to see how this how shifted from my original request for data about other court cases.

If his lifestyle has improved due to his GF, then nothing you can do there.

The reason I am asking is because 65% is an extraordinary case, far from the norm, and so you would need to be able to justify in court why it would be so high. And the costs to do so would be very high, and if you failed you might be assigned costs. Just something to consider.

[momtoalot]

His girlfriend in unemployed w two teenagers

[DowntroddenDad]

His girlfriend in unemployed w two teenagers

Then if he is able to improve his lifestyle when spending 60% of his income on support payments of one type or another, he has unreported income.

You might think about a forensic accountant.