3 kids 2 wives - Calculating child support

[SadAndTired]

Ex says his lawyer told him that child support is calculated in a different way now. I am self repped. I know not to listen to my ex, but has anyone else heard of this?

Ex wife 1 - 1 child of marriage
Ex wife 2 - 2 children of the marriage

He says child support is calculated saying he has 3 kids total and out of that one total child support is calculated. Ex wife 1 gets 1/3 of total and ex-wife 2 gets 2/3 of total.

I thought child support is calculated independently. First family first, etc.

Can anyone confirm?

Many thanks.

[blinkandimgone]

Tried to locate any piece of information on this and can't. It seems like he's blowing smoke or has misunderstood his lawyer.

[rockscan]

Ya he's wrong. It's full table in each circumstance. So full table for one with first mom and full table for two with second mom.

Unless he claims hardship and he has a judge decide, he's on the hook for full table for both families.

[Challenger]

He may have quite successful argument that child and wife number 2 never seen his full salary before the breakup due to his support obligations to wife number 1

[rockscan]

He may have quite successful argument that child and wife number 2 never seen his full salary before the breakup due to his support obligations to wife number 1

Nope. He has to show his full income information to ex 2. Unless he is hiding money she will see it.

[Challenger]

Nope. He has to show his full income information to ex 2. Unless he is hiding money she will see it.

Nobody said he will hide his salary.
What I am saying he may argue that with second wife while he had income in amount of $xxx they and child only lived on $xxx-$yyy, where $yyy was support to first wife/children.
And judge may agree with his argument, as child from second marriage and wife never seen his full salary. Table amount is a guidance in most cases, but I think he has a chance to challenge it.

[rockscan]

Nobody said he will hide his salary.
What I am saying he may argue that with second wife while he had income in amount of $xxx they and child only lived on $xxx-$yyy, where $yyy was support to first wife/children.
And judge may agree with his argument, as child from second marriage and wife never seen his full salary. Table amount is a guidance in most cases, but I think he has a chance to challenge it.

Still no. Whatever his income is currently is what is used. If he is purposely underemployed that would be a separate argument.

[Challenger]

Still no. Whatever his income is currently is what is used. If he is purposely underemployed that would be a separate argument.

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-l...p/v2/v2_4.html

the case of prior children fits the basis of claim for undue hardship. Doesn’t mean he will get it, but depending on circumstances he may have a chance.

[rockscan]

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-l...p/v2/v2_4.html

the case of prior children fits the basis of claim for undue hardship. Doesn’t mean he will get it, but depending on circumstances he may have a chance.

First, the original question was whether OP's husband was wrong in his claim he doesn't have to pay full table for each relationship. This is wrong.

Second, your argument originally was that he wouldn't have to pay full table if OP didn't know his income. That is also false as he has to provide his full income information.

WRT your new argument, you are correct that he can claim undue hardship but here's a case where the judge lays out pretty clearly why undue hardship isn't easily found. (A few other cases are cited too): https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...resultIndex=11

The bottom line? Having two families does not mean reduced support. Kids don't suffer because of one parent's poor decisions.

[Challenger]

First, the original question was whether OP's husband was wrong in his claim he doesn't have to pay full table for each relationship. This is wrong.

I never said it was right, you are arguing with yourself here.
I said he may have a successful argument, and indeed he may.

Second, your argument originally was that he wouldn't have to pay full table if OP didn't know his income. That is also false as he has to provide his full income information.

My post is still above, so let’s not make up facts. I said the second wife and child never seen his full salary before breakup due to his support obligations to wife number two.
And as I was explaining later it doesn’t mean he is hiding his salary, but the fact they used to live on his smaller income.

[rockscan]

He may have quite successful argument that child and wife number 2 never seen his full salary before the breakup due to his support obligations to wife number 1

He wouldn't have a successful argument. If you review available case law and citations, judges have fallen on the side of support being paid.

As for not seeing his salary, this is also a ridiculous idea as they would file their taxes as married and his ex would see his income on their taxes. Not to mention he would have to provide proof of his income on his financial statement. And the support is listed as separate on that form.

What he pays in child support is not subtracted from his income and if your spouse is not telling you what they earn, that is a huge red flag in a relationship.

[StillPaying]

RS - you're digging yourself into an unnecessary hole. You misunderstood the posts and keep going on about it. He posted the link to the available undue hardship claim and you agreed with him. Understand this is the only thing he's been talking about - then go reread the posts. You're coming off way out've left field.

Having multiple kids with multiple ex's would affect the cs to the future kids. Having a previous cs order would qualify you under undue hardship - but then the two home's lifestyles would be compared to see if reduced cs is necessary. By the time you have 2+ cs orders against you, the new kids would not see full table support - reducing the cs they'll receive for their parents' decisions.