Child Support Reduction

[PeteS]

I am a civil servant. Routinely our collective agreement negotiations extend past the contract expiry and any raises we receive are generally 3 years later in a lump sum payment. This means that my Notice of Assessment (exchanged annually for CS calculation) is higher in one year instead of spread evenly over the 3 years. So the amount I pay one calendar year is inflated because it is not actually reflective of my actual take home income every month.

Second issue is that I took a temporary assignment to a higher paying job for 18 months and have returned to my substantive position in December which is a lower salary. So I expect to be paying support this coming year based on that temporary salary.

If it matters, I am also paying the majority of my son’s competitive hockey development. In the tune of 1000s a year without help from other parent. The sep agreement we have indicates we split section 7 at 60/40 but what I incur for extra dev for him far exceeds the 60/40 and is in the tune of 1000s extra a year. This was an activity he partook in before the separation. But ex won’t pay for any extra dev as this is a negotiable expense per agreement. Son wants to play higher level hockey so the extra dev is part and parcel.

My question is. Is there a benefit to me seeking mediation to reduce my child support considering my circumstances? I want to pay what I am supposed to but also don’t want to pay too much out of ignorance. I have already a spent 10k arguing with ex through lawyers over a very uncomplicated sep agreement so my appetite for lawyers is pretty much nil. Thoughts?

[rockscan]

I am a civil servant. Routinely our collective agreement negotiations extend past the contract expiry and any raises we receive are generally 3 years later in a lump sum payment. This means that my Notice of Assessment (exchanged annually for CS calculation) is higher in one year instead of spread evenly over the 3 years. So the amount I pay one calendar year is inflated because it is not actually reflective of my actual take home income every month.

Go back and calculate what you should have been paying over the three years and provide your ex with an option of receiving an arrears amount. What has happened is your union has negotiated a retroactive amount of income so that is what you use as your calculation. For example, the retro pay means you earned 80,000 per year rather than 75,000 so calculate table support based on 80,000 for those years.

Second issue is that I took a temporary assignment to a higher paying job for 18 months and have returned to my substantive position in December which is a lower salary. So I expect to be paying support this coming year based on that temporary salary.

Calculate what you should have been paying for those 18 months and what you did pay and determine arrears. Then pay going forward based on that amount.

If it matters, I am also paying the majority of my son’s competitive hockey development. In the tune of 1000s a year without help from other parent. The sep agreement we have indicates we split section 7 at 60/40 but what I incur for extra dev for him far exceeds the 60/40 and is in the tune of 1000s extra a year. This was an activity he partook in before the separation. But ex won’t pay for any extra dev as this is a negotiable expense per agreement. Son wants to play higher level hockey so the extra dev is part and parcel.

If it was in your agreement you could enforce it but if it isn't then your choice to pay it means nothing. It has nothing to do with support.

my question is. Is there a benefit to me seeking mediation to reduce my child support considering my circumstances? I want to pay what I am supposed to but also don’t want to pay too much out of ignorance. I have already a spent 10k arguing with ex through lawyers over a very uncomplicated sep agreement so my appetite for lawyers is pretty much nil. Thoughts?

You don't need lawyers for this as it is straightforward. Your first step is to figure out what you should have paid and what you owe on that amount. Pull together the proof and calculations and send her an email with it and the updated amounts and what you owe. Offer her that and the amount of ongoing support. If she refuses, request mediation. If she refuses that, let her know you will be filing a motion to change support and will be requesting hockey be considered a section 7 expense she must contribute to. Then you file. You can easily represent yourself on this.

[noteasy]

CS doesn't need to be this difficult but lawyers will make it as difficult as possible:

For the union item of delaying the increase in pay that works.

Calculate what you should have been paying for those 18 months and what you did pay and determine arrears. Then pay going forward based on that amount.

*the amount you currently earn per year.

For the 18 month bump in pay.
Year 0: earn 50K pre-divorce
Year 1: CS based on 50K; earned 60K
Year 2: CS based on 60K; pay arrears for Year 1 of the 10K difference; earn 50K
Year 3: CS based on 50K; get money back for the 10K less you earned previous year.

Put the clauses in about no other child support to be owed prior to date X.

There is also the ability to file for a change in circumstances when pay increases substantially (material change) or decreases substantially but why complicate things if you can handle it?


The hockey expense is separate and it would be best to treat it separate. You will notice the lack of "support your kids!" outrage. Money goes to the parent.
Yeah, you could probably get that hockey money but to be honest I am just guessing; what was she counting on the kid not be a success?
Fix one problem at a time.

[rockscan]

*the amount you currently earn per year.

For the 18 month bump in pay.
Year 0: earn 50K pre-divorce
Year 1: CS based on 50K; earned 60K
Year 2: CS based on 60K; pay arrears for Year 1 of the 10K difference; earn 50K
Year 3: CS based on 50K; get money back for the 10K less you earned previous year.

Put the clauses in about no other child support to be owed prior to date X.

This is incorrect and more attuned to a new agreement. Follow the calculation I noted above. My husband went through this and it was exactly how the judge wanted it.

[noteasy]

This is incorrect and more attuned to a new agreement. Follow the calculation I noted above. My husband went through this and it was exactly how the judge wanted it.

Calculate what you should have been paying for those 18 months (60K) and what you did pay and determine arrears. Then pay going forward based on that amount (60K).

In my example the normal yearly earnings were $50K/year
To make this less complicated let us say the temporary assignment was for 12 months and began January 1st.

They got a pay increase to $60K for one year due to a temporary assignment.
They failed to keep that temporary assignment and returned to their 50K/year job.


So I am saying they should be paying based on 50K per year going forward forever until there is another change and pay back support for that 1 year bump in pay.

You are saying they should pay arrears based on 60K then pay going forward forever based on 60k until there is another change?

[rockscan]

They had a retro award outside of the secondment. They need to look at their annual income with the retro award AND the year of secondment. If they want to pay support based on their actual income, they have to calculate their actual income for the periods of the retro award AND the 18 months of the secondment.

[noteasy]

They had a retro award outside of the secondment. They need to look at their annual income with the retro award AND the year of secondment. If they want to pay support based on their actual income, they have to calculate their actual income for the periods of the retro award AND the 18 months of the secondment.

Now I am thoroughly confused because I was only referencing a quote you made that was only in reference to the secondment and you had said they have to pay some average going forward. This would be instead of their actual income.

Maybe some examples with numbers would help.

[rockscan]

Now I am thoroughly confused because I was only referencing a quote you made that was only in reference to the secondment and you had said they have to pay some average going forward. This would be instead of their actual income.

Maybe some examples with numbers would help.

I never said they had to pay an average. I said they had to pay ARREARS on the money they were making if they want to pay what they are currently earning going forward.

There is no average. They earned the money and have to pay support on it.

[noteasy]

Examples with numbers would help. Examples are good.

[rockscan]

Examples with numbers would help. Examples are good.

He doesn't need to provide examples. He just needs to look at the income each year he is questioning and what the retro award salary was and calculate it himself. As a union employee who went through bargaining, he would have been provided info on what his salary was when they won the case.

[noteasy]

He doesn't need to provide examples. He just needs to look at the income each year he is questioning and what the retro award salary was and calculate it himself. As a union employee who went through bargaining, he would have been provided info on what his salary was when they won the case.

I am asking you for examples. I gave examples for the Secondment item only and you said I was wrong, I don't think I was. So using numbers can you give an example?

Here are some numbers:
regular salary 50K
Secondment salary for 1 year (january 1 - december 1) 60K
Add in a retroactive increase of 1K for all of the 3 years prior total awarded before the secondment started.

[rockscan]

I did say how he could calculate it. His union/employer would have told him what his retro award was. Therefore he knows his income update for the years that correlate to his lump sum payment. But because you want numbers here is the answer:

Year 1 he earned 60,000, Year 2 he earned 61,000 and year 3 he earned 62,000. His union was successful in negotiating an annual increase that made his income 60,000, 64,000 and 67,000. Which means he goes back and calculates his new income and what he should have been paying.

For his secondment he probably paid cs on it at some point but to make it clear it may have gone like this: he started the job in June 2021. His income on his 2021 taxes would have included that amount and his lower amount for Jan to May. If he updated at tax time, he would have been paying cs on that amount beginning June 2022 to now. His secondment went Jan to Dec 2022 and he earned the higher income last year which is on his taxes and he would pay support based on that starting in June this year. Except he has gone back to his old job making less money. Therefore he needs to go back to 2020 and 2021 and calculate his ACTUAL income for those years and what he paid versus what he owes. Then calculate what he earned in 2022 and what he paid and what he owed and pay that. He will know what his current salary is for this year and he will need to subtract what he is over paying Jan to June and subtract that from the arrears.

An example of this is his normal job pays 60,000 and his secondment pays 65,000. In 2020 he earned 60,000. In 2021 he earned 63,000 and in 2022 he earned 65,000. If he went by taxes starting in June he would have paid part of the year in 2021 based on 60,000 despite earning more and in 2022 paid part of the year based on 63,000 despite earning 65,000 and this year he has been paying based on 63,000 and will jump to 65,000 with taxes despite only earning 60,000 currently. If he wants to revert back to actual income he needs to calculate what he should have been paying every time his income changed.

The bottom line is you can't only pay on a lower income when you are earning more. You have to either update every time your income changes or accept you have to pay based on last years income.

[noteasy]

What you said is what I said except I added the part about the CS returning to the lower amount after the secondment bump was gone.
I was a little worried I did it wrong.

[Rioe]

Honestly, it's simplest just to pay based on the previous year's income. It lags behind changes in pay, but it gets there eventually.

year 0 - established 50k as base income for CS
year 1 - paid based on 50k, and was actually paid 50k again
year 2 - paid based on 50k again, but was actually paid 60k because of secondment
year 3 - paid based on 60k, but was now actually paid $70k because of secondment and retropay
year 4 - paid based on 70k, but was actually paid 55k because back in normal position at new salary
year 5 - paid based on 55k

It's nice when you are earning more than what you are paying on. You should set some savings aside in anticipation of the upcoming year when you are paying on more than you are earning.

Child support and section 7 extraordinary expenses are separate issues. You can't just reduce child support because you think you are overpaying section 7 expenses.

For hockey, you just have to decide if the cost of going back to court would be worth the amount she's not paying. It would kind of suck to spend $5k to get $2k back from her. You may just have to handle the hockey expenses yourself, or tell the kid you can't afford it anymore. Just leave yourself a documentation trail of asking her for her share, and her refusing it, in case you do need to do something about it later.

[rockscan]

Honestly, it's simplest just to pay based on the previous year's income. It lags behind changes in pay, but it gets there eventually.

year 0 - established 50k as base income for CS
year 1 - paid based on 50k, and was actually paid 50k again
year 2 - paid based on 50k again, but was actually paid 60k because of secondment
year 3 - paid based on 60k, but was now actually paid $70k because of secondment and retropay
year 4 - paid based on 70k, but was actually paid 55k because back in normal position at new salary
year 5 - paid based on 55k

It's nice when you are earning more than what you are paying on. You should set some savings aside in anticipation of the upcoming year when you are paying on more than you are earning.

Child support and section 7 extraordinary expenses are separate issues. You can't just reduce child support because you think you are overpaying section 7 expenses.

For hockey, you just have to decide if the cost of going back to court would be worth the amount she's not paying. It would kind of suck to spend $5k to get $2k back from her. You may just have to handle the hockey expenses yourself, or tell the kid you can't afford it anymore. Just leave yourself a documentation trail of asking her for her share, and her refusing it, in case you do need to do something about it later.

Yes but he also got a retro award so he does need to pay arrears for that income.

Unless you are losing your job just accept the income and support as a year behind.