Custodial parent income disclosure

[timberlandman]

As per my SA we are to exchange and provide all financial disclosure as of june each year to recalculate CS amount and sect 7 percentages.
Being the payor of CS i provide my t4, noa, annually but my x refuses to provide the same detail of disclosure.
She is of opinion that being the receiver of CS that her income is not required to be disclosed. This has been ongoing since our divorce 5 yrs ago. When pressed she sends me a redacted page 1 of her tax return only.
Repeated emails requesting full discolure go unanswered.

I know she makes more than me and refuses to declare her gross income as well as income from boarding international student via an agency. What are the most reasonable options to get her to provide full financial disclosure without involving lawyers at this time?

Lastly, She has a new partner living with her ..could his income or their combined incomes factor into calculating CS and sect 7?

[Janus]

For CS, she does not have to provide you with her income.

If she wants you to share S7 expenses, then she obviously has to provide her income.

So, until she provides her income, you pay table CS, but not a penny towards S7 expenses.

Note that if your agreement says that you have to exchange taxes, and she refuses, you should still pay CS, because a judge will rip you apart if you avoid CS over a technicality.

[rockscan]

Janus is correct. She could be a millionaire and her income does not factor into cs.

UNLESS you have an off set situation where you have kids 50/50 and you pay each other. Then her income factors in.

If she wants s7 then she needs to provide full disclosure on her income to determine proportionate share.

Her new partners income means nothing so dont even open that box Pandora.

[len14]

Let's say you are 50/50 with off-set child support, and your ex moves her new BF and his child into her home. Since the purpose of CS is to balance lifestyle between children's homes, isn't there an argument that ex's expenses are now reduced or shared so they have more financial room? I am not concerned with the new partners income, more interested in the fact that her living expenses are now half; offset gives her $600 in CS and now children are enjoying a higher quality of life at mothers home. Has anyone seen any case law that addresses this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[standing on the sidelines]

Let's say you are 50/50 with off-set child support, and your ex moves her new BF and his child into her home. Since the purpose of CS is to balance lifestyle between children's homes, isn't there an argument that ex's expenses are now reduced or shared so they have more financial room? I am not concerned with the new partners income, more interested in the fact that her living expenses are now half; offset gives her $600 in CS and now children are enjoying a higher quality of life at mothers home. Has anyone seen any case law that addresses this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

look at it this way. If you moved in with a new partner would you pay more CS to your ex as your expenses were cut?

Some of her expenses may be cut but some would go up. Like groceries and other "consumables" She may have moved into a more expensive place to have more room for the new mans child. Just because she moves in with someone doesn't mean that her bills are magically halved.

[len14]

look at it this way. If you moved in with a new partner would you pay more CS to your ex as your expenses were cut?

Some of her expenses may be cut but some would go up. Like groceries and other "consumables" She may have moved into a more expensive place to have more room for the new mans child. Just because she moves in with someone doesn't mean that her bills are magically halved.

During separation there was a balance sheet used to ensure that both households maintained equal standards. If they haven't changed homes and she is housing another two people full time under same conditions then wouldn't that now mean that she has half the expense load? If I was to move someone in and charge them rent I would have to disclose that as income and my CS amounts would increase but she can move in with someone share expenses, not declare common law on tax returns and continue to receive CS from me to equalize pay? It just seems a little twisted. There must be some case law that references this scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rockscan]

During separation there was a balance sheet used to ensure that both households maintained equal standards. If they haven't changed homes and she is housing another two people full time under same conditions then wouldn't that now mean that she has half the expense load? If I was to move someone in and charge them rent I would have to disclose that as income and my CS amounts would increase but she can move in with someone share expenses, not declare common law on tax returns and continue to receive CS from me to equalize pay? It just seems a little twisted. There must be some case law that references this scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You will be hard pressed to find it. Its no different if you were to move a gf in who makes $200,000 a year and pays all your bills. Unless she is claiming hardship, her spouses income has no impact.

[len14]

You will be hard pressed to find it. Its no different if you were to move a gf in who makes $200,000 a year and pays all your bills. Unless she is claiming hardship, her spouses income has no impact.

The amount the other person earns is irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant to the law. What should be relevant and what CS is meant to do is equalize households for the sake of the children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Berner_Faith]

The amount the other person earns is irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant to the law. What should be relevant and what CS is meant to do is equalize households for the sake of the children.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if your ex decides to purchase a $2 million home would you still use this logic? Obviously her household bills would go up as she now owns a $2 million mortgage.

Your logic is flawed. It does not equalize household expenses, I'm not sure where you came up with that. If one person hears with electric heat and the other person heats with natural gas, does the one who heats with a cheaper source pay more because the other spouse heats with hydro?

One spouse wants unlimited internet, satellite and phone, the other spouse just wants basics of those... does the spouse who spends less owe more because the other spouse chooses a more expensive package?

You also failed to answer the question... if you moved in a new partner who assisted you with the household bills, would you agree to pay more than $600 because now your bills are reduced?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Janus]

The amount the other person earns is irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant to the law. What should be relevant and what CS is meant to do is equalize households for the sake of the children.

I understand what you are trying to get across.

In a custody/access situation, the goal of child support is to increase the standard of living for the primary parent, which will in turn presumably be good for the child.

In a shared custody situation, the goal of child support is a little unclear. In theory, the goal is to equalize the standard of living between the households. However, in practice, they don't actually look at the standard of living at the households, which means that the child support paid is mostly arbitrary.

Unlikely to convince anybody of this though. Most people think that offset support is fair when it is clearly mathematically wrong.

[rockscan]

Unlikely to convince anybody of this though. Most people think that offset support is fair when it is clearly mathematically wrong.

I would hazard a guess that about 50% of child support payments are unfair. Child support is supposed to be one parents portion of food/shelter for their kids but in situations where the paying parent makes less, its really not fair. It works in cases where the paying parent makes more (and significantly more). For cases where the recipient is shacked up with someone who has a high income and also gets cs AND their ex (paying parent) is destitute because they pay $$$, then its really not fair. The cs guidelines don't take that into account. Equalizing households to me is an urban legend.

OP, you will have a hard time arguing that household income should be considered and there may not be caselaw to support it. Judges at the superior court level go with the guidelines. You would have to get an appeal judge to agree with you to get it changed and thats big bucks.

And if you think I don't understand, my partner makes half what his ex makes. His cs and s7 expenses then make their incomes 1/3 to her 2/3. She brings in over $100,000 with cs/s7 and her income. He was unemployed at one point meaning it dropped to 1/5 her income. Me moving in and covering most of the household bills means he can actually keep his head above water and make his cs payments. She would argue he's got me to pay his bills so its not fair her kids suffer. She is more than welcome to find a rich new man to pay her bills!

[Janus]

Equalizing households to me is an urban legend.

I agree. In shared custody situations, child support may help balance incomes, or it may create further inequality. That is why I said that for shared custody, CS payments are arbitrary. They have little to no connection to the actual child.

In shared custody, sometimes CS will help the child, sometimes CS will hurt the child.

The legislation actually has it right. Judges are supposed to consider the actual facts on the ground in a shared custody situation before making a CS award. (section 9c) Unfortunately, they do not. I'm not sure why they don't, but they don't.