Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CS and s.7 on EI

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post

    Actually... Depending on the court it appears in a judge will lose their mind on both high-income parents. See it a lot. In fact, a lot of judges won't order CS on that kind of income between the parties because someone making 250k will eventually get a new job and make 350k etc.

    "I have 3 emergency Family Services motions today and I am stuck here helping rich people sort pennies from the pounds and waste valuable court resources." -- I believe this was Justice Lemon who said this once.
    I would hope they would get spanked by a judge.

    My argument was basically that it wouldn't surprise me to have the lower earner argue they should still get child support since their income is lower.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    I have heard many judges wish that they could send rich people to Arbitration.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

    Not necessarily. If you were earning the lesser amount you would believe it was only fair to equalize. After all, parent at 350 has more money to spend on child and child may prefer that parent. If 350 parent has to pay support, it equalizes the homes. Fair is fair regardless of how much money you make. Why should kid “go without” at parent 250's house?

    It's only “harass” because 350 parent doesn't want to play.

    For parents who make 100g or less, this is easy to see as not needed but when you are at that level and there is an imbalance, it will be argued. Having more money doesn't change the beliefs. It just makes people at a lower income incredulous over the fight.
    Actually... Depending on the court it appears in a judge will lose their mind on both high-income parents. See it a lot. In fact, a lot of judges won't order CS on that kind of income between the parties because someone making 250k will eventually get a new job and make 350k etc.

    "I have 3 emergency Family Services motions today and I am stuck here helping rich people sort pennies from the pounds and waste valuable court resources." -- I believe this was Justice Lemon who said this once.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by Challenger View Post
    With their income each parent has enough money for child that lives with both parents, and this CS becomes a tool of one parent to harass with court another.
    Not necessarily. If you were earning the lesser amount you would believe it was only fair to equalize. After all, parent at 350 has more money to spend on child and child may prefer that parent. If 350 parent has to pay support, it equalizes the homes. Fair is fair regardless of how much money you make. Why should kid “go without” at parent 250's house?

    It's only “harass” because 350 parent doesn't want to play.

    For parents who make 100g or less, this is easy to see as not needed but when you are at that level and there is an imbalance, it will be argued. Having more money doesn't change the beliefs. It just makes people at a lower income incredulous over the fight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Challenger
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

    But why should they? Together they had an income of 600g a year and now have 250. By equalizing they both have 300.
    With their income each parent has enough money for child that lives with both parents, and this CS becomes a tool of one parent to harass with court another.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by Challenger View Post

    My point was that 250k parent could easily raise child 50% time without those $720 a month from a 350k parent.
    But why should they? Together they had an income of 600g a year and now have 250. By equalizing they both have 300.

    Leave a comment:


  • Challenger
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

    And this is a perfect example of unreasonableness. The 250 parent wants money from the 350 parent and the 350 parent doesn't want to pay. It's petty and stupid and frankly they deserve their legal fees for being unreasonable.
    My point was that 250k parent could easily raise child 50% time without those $720 a month from a 350k parent.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    Originally posted by Challenger View Post

    In the perfect world the amount of child support would be amount of money necessary to raise child. Your child, your responsibility. In the reality, I know a couple - one makes 250k, the other one is 350k a year. Child lives 50/50. Why there is a demand for CS is beyond me, clearly both parents could raise child (or 50% part) without financial help of other parent that earns more. I highly doubt that court allowing their battle about CS benefits the best interest of a child, and willing to guess their legal fees are higher than the CS.
    And this is a perfect example of unreasonableness. The 250 parent wants money from the 350 parent and the 350 parent doesn't want to pay. It's petty and stupid and frankly they deserve their legal fees for being unreasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Challenger
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    CS isn't the punishing factor, the terrible system and unreasonable parties are.

    In a perfect world everyone would be honest and all parties would update accordingly but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.
    In the perfect world the amount of child support would be amount of money necessary to raise child. Your child, your responsibility. In the reality, I know a couple - one makes 250k, the other one is 350k a year. Child lives 50/50. Why there is a demand for CS is beyond me, clearly both parents could raise child (or 50% part) without financial help of other parent that earns more. I highly doubt that court allowing their battle about CS benefits the best interest of a child, and willing to guess their legal fees are higher than the CS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jurassic Park
    replied
    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
    CS isn't the punishing factor, the terrible system and unreasonable parties are.

    In a perfect world everyone would be honest and all parties would update accordingly but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.
    Unfortunately we don't. CS is a part of the terrible system.

    Leave a comment:


  • rockscan
    replied
    CS isn't the punishing factor, the terrible system and unreasonable parties are.

    In a perfect world everyone would be honest and all parties would update accordingly but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jurassic Park
    replied
    Originally posted by Tayken View Post

    What should happen vs what happens depends on the two parties in the matter.

    In a perfect world with parents that communicate and are not high-conflict.

    1. CS/S7 remains at current rate for the duration of the severance package.
    2. When the severance package expires then the CS/S7 is adjusted for the UI benefits.
    3. When the parent gets a new job the CS/S7 adjusts back immediately to the new income levels of the new position.

    If the parents are immature and are unable to co-parent/cooperate and/or have shit legal advice the situation becomes a nightmare.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken
    It is a high conflict situation, sadly.

    I know a bunch of stones will fly at me but I'll say it anyway. This whole CS thing is very unfair and punishing.

    Thank you Taken.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tayken
    replied
    Originally posted by Jurassic Park View Post
    A parent who's paying CS for one child has recently lost their job. They've received a severance package for several months and applied for unemployment benefits (application is not approved yet).
    What happens to the CS and s.7 in this case? How is the amount of CS/s.7 is calculated and what generally should be done in such situation?
    Thanks​
    What should happen vs what happens depends on the two parties in the matter.

    In a perfect world with parents that communicate and are not high-conflict.

    1. CS/S7 remains at current rate for the duration of the severance package.
    2. When the severance package expires then the CS/S7 is adjusted for the UI benefits.
    3. When the parent gets a new job the CS/S7 adjusts back immediately to the new income levels of the new position.

    If the parents are immature and are unable to co-parent/cooperate and/or have shit legal advice the situation becomes a nightmare.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Leave a comment:


  • Jurassic Park
    started a topic CS and s.7 on EI

    CS and s.7 on EI

    A parent who's paying CS for one child has recently lost their job. They've received a severance package for several months and applied for unemployment benefits (application is not approved yet).
    What happens to the CS and s.7 in this case? How is the amount of CS/s.7 is calculated and what generally should be done in such situation?
    Thanks​
Our Divorce Forums
Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
Working...
X