CS and no income

[HappyMomma]

From many posts on here it is my understanding that the courts do not 'allow' a parent to have zero income.

My ex has not worked in over a year and ran out of EI about 6 months ago.

Now he is trying to say that because my support is his only income that it needs to increase so he can rent an apartment. Oi.su

He wants to recalculate support based on him having zero income.

Before I respond I would like to know if anyone has any references to the law on this issue. The CSG don't actually say 'you have to have an income' so I'm guessing there is some case-law on this?

Any references would be appreciated.

Thanks!!

[rockscan]

What did he do for work before? Education, experience etc? Do some research on having an income imputed to him.

[FightingForFamily]

It's not in the CSG because it's covered by legislation, the Family Law Act. Essentially all parents must support their children to the best of their ability.

In Ontario, this is identified in paragraph 31:

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

The extension of this is that if you are capable of being a productive citizens, the law requires you to be productive if you have children. You MUST support them, thus the concept of reasonably imputed income. If you can't pay right now, then arrears will accrue to be paid off later.

Former spouses are not ATM machines.

[HappyMomma]

It's not in the CSG because it's covered by legislation, the Family Law Act. Essentially all parents must support their children to the best of their ability.

In Ontario, this is identified in paragraph 31:

Obligation of parent to support child

31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

The extension of this is that if you are capable of being a productive citizens, the law requires you to be productive if you have children. You MUST support them, thus the concept of reasonably imputed income. If you can't pay right now, then arrears will accrue to be paid off later.

Former spouses are not ATM machines.

That's exactly what I needed. Thank you.

[FirstTimer]

I would laugh at him....he can say and do whatever he wants. If he was right, my ex would have primary custody of our son right now which she doesn't.

When we went into court, she asked for shared parenting as well as child support and right to be in his life etc.

The judge nailed her on the fact she doesn't have a stable job and as well as her abusive behavior towards her own kid in front of our S4 that was a concern to the court.

My counter was that I provide a stable. routine and secure environment for the child compared to her.

Bottom line is that he is not able to provide the necessities of life for the child right now and for the time being, till he gets back on his feet, the best interest of the child should go to you as you are in a position to do provide that.

Don't let him and his threats get to you. You are doing what's in the best interest of your child. The judge will see that he is all about himself if he is asking basically what amounts to....I'm using my kids child support to pay for my lifestyle or lack of motivation.

If you had read my ex's affidavit, it was along the same lines, she TRULY and 100% believed she was the victim and talking to her, she 100% believed judge would side with her...sadly that did not happen for her.

Cause at the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is not him, you, the lawyers, it's the judge.